11

The question states: There is an assumption taken that in order for an answer to be valid on this site it needs a source. This is, as I understand it, an incorrect assumption, at least precisely as stated. "Valid on this site" is potentially very strong language, suggesting that that which doesn't meet that standard is invalid and subject to deletion, or ...


10

Summary: the asker's selection doesn't and shouldn't mean much on our site, but on some sites it makes sense and there's a lot of resistance to changing it, so let's pursue per-site exceptions. From the beginning, the claim has been that accepted answers convey signal that "this worked". As you point out, that's not really meaningful on some ...


9

I think that an answer to a non-Kabala question that is based on Kabala concepts which it neither explains clearly nor links to clear explanations of is likely to be in violation of the spirit and letter of our jargon policy. The "overall guiding principle" stated in this policy is: Will any English speaker who is interested in this content be able to ...


9

Accepting your own answer is an intentional feature in the StackExchange network. By accepting an answer you make it clear that the question has been resolved, and easy to see the accepted which is marked with a green check-mark. Usually accepting an answer gives 15 reputation points to the answerer, and permanently docks the answer directly under the ...


7

(I see Isaac Moses has written a good answer, but I already wrote this before I saw that so I'll just post anyway for a slightly different approach.) I disagree with the premise of your post: There is an assumption taken that in order for an answer to be valid on this site it needs a source. This is not true. For an answer to be valid it must answer the ...


6

While there clearly isn't anything prohibited about leaving such comments, not everyone appreciates them, and being sensitive to what bothers other users seems to me a valid metric to take into consideration. To quote Monica Cellio in chat: Accepting an answer is not mandatory. I think there's a difference between reminding/educating new or low-rep users on ...


5

This was a decision made by the good folks at Stack Exchange. See the question, answers, and comments there for the whys and wherefores. There is a way to see this information: go through every question a person asked and see how many (that qualify) he accepted. Or write a query for it on the Stack Exchange Data Explorer.


4

Interesting idea. A queue would indeed be best AFAICT for the purpose you mention. However, in case that purpose is adjudged not important enough to warrant a queue, perhaps Stack Exchange could add instead a "go to a random question" link (like Wikipedia has). (Personally, I'm not sure either one is necessary. I'm just putting forth the alternative ...


3

The Stack Exchange API still returns a value for accept_rate for a user query. For example: http://api.stackexchange.com/2.1/users/883?order=desc&sort=reputation&site=judaism&filter=!nTBZKAKmnK returns a key:value pair of {"accept_rate":63}.


2

As noted on the Stack Exchange blog, it's been considered and not adopted: Now, there are some special rules around owner-accepted answers, to prevent gaming:…2. No change in sort order. Normally, accepted answers are "docked" under the question. This is not true for owner accepted answers; they stay in standard sort order like any other answer. (...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible