Reputation score for bad questions

Question

We often have high-rep users providing answers to questions when they should, in fact, be voting to close those questions, because the questions are duplicates, or because the questions are too poorly worded to answer, or the questions are obviously general reference. These users get rep points, the asker gets an answer, despite this being the kind of question we want to discourage.

Therefore, I propose that reputation not be awarded in cases where a question is closed for being a duplicate, or for being general-reference, unless the answer has a certain number of votes, or the answer is merged to the original question (in the case of a dupe). This would avoid rewarding lazy users who should be doing more to take care of the site.

Answer 1

This almost already exists...

See, the idea is that a question that gets closed will eventually be deleted (or re-opened). It's a sort of "limbo", where questions sit until the community decides on their fate. But there's almost no value in having hundreds of closed questions littering up the site, with the very notable exception of duplicates...

Once a question is deleted, any reputation points gained by the folks answering it is forfeit - they won't lose it immediately, but the next time that user, a moderator, or a developer triggers a reputation recalc, it's gone.

So the real lesson here is the story isn't over just because a question gets closed: sooner or later, someone needs to step up and finish the job:

• Moderators can delete anything. So feel free to ask them to delete a question that's sitting around stinking up the place.

• 10K users can vote to delete closed questions after they've been closed for two days. So if you have at least 10K reputation points on the site, feel free to go through the list of closed questions and vote to delete stuff.

• 20K users can also vote to delete, but don't have to wait two days. So if you've managed to rack up 20K reputation points, go nuts.

But don't delete duplicates

Seriously, don't. Unless they're literally word-for-word duplicates, just leave them be - folks tend to find all sorts of different ways of asking the same questions, and the more variations we have pointing to the same canonical answer, the better. Of course, you should

Merge duplicates with good answers

As Mitch notes, it's easy to answer a duplicate without realizing that it is a duplicate. As the site grows, this gets easier and easier. An honorable person might, upon realizing their answer adds nothing to what's already provided elsewhere, delete their own answer... But it's also common for duplicates to get better answers than the original - in these cases, asking a moderator to step in and merge the two ensures the answers get collected under the original question.

Answer 2

Ummm ... why? In my humble opinion, lots of questions get closed for frivolous reasons. Is the purpose of this site to help people with problems with the language? If so, what is gained from closing debateable questions? Sure, if someone asks a question that is clearly completely irrelevant, like "When was the National Football League founded?" or "How do I bake a cherry pie?", then it should be closed and deleted. And I understand trying to keep questions off that could be answered by a simple reference, like, "What is the definition of the word ___?" But besides that ... You're saying that you want to not only punish the person who asked a question that, in your opinion, is poorly worded, but you also want to punish anyone who disagreed with your opinion?

I think that an important use of a site like this is for people who are struggling with their English, like someone just learning the language, to have a place to get help. By definition such people are going to have difficulty expressing themselves. To say that we refuse to answer questions about good English unless they are expressed in good English is a little like saying that you are too sick to go to the doctor.

If you think a question is unclear or poorly worded, then fine, don't answer it. But we don't need to turn this into a crusade against the poster and everyone who condescended to try to help the struggling person.

On the other hand, why does anyone care what their score is? Last I checked there was no cash prize for high score.

Answer 3

• With respect to duplicate questions, I have a number of disagreements:
  • The answerer has -no- idea that the question is a duplicate. Why would you penalize someone for their lack of knowledge?
  • an additional answer (via a duplicate) may be better than any existing one and may benefit from not being biased by the existing one.

So, I don't think that rep should be modified because of closing status due to duplicates.

• With respect to closing because of poor quality (the other close reasons):
  • I think the entire voting mechanism and plurality of opinion handles this. You don't know that you're right...you may think it is bad, but it could be that you're wrong. That's why it takes more than one vote to close. Who are you to judge that because of your one vote, somebody else is totally wrong and should incur some reduction of rep (or lack of increase). If some group of people upvote an answer, but others -downvote- the question, or even close the question, I don't think they should be related. There are lots of 'meh' questions that turn out to have fascinating answers that make the question somehow good.
  • even if one could justify not giving rep for closed questions, the rules for when that rep is or is not allowed are too specific, each exception and the strength of each exception could be argued.

Not to be perverse, but I do share with you that it annoys me when I think a question is crap but a number of people 'who should know better' answer it, giving it (in my opinion) unwarranted legitimacy. But then, on reflection, I bet I have committed the same in others eyes. I think the voting and rep system as is records what people think, and pulling back in some small cases is too manipulative.

Answer 4

Wiser heads than I have dealt with the question of duplicates: but why do you want to prevent people gaining rep for answering bad questions? The Reversal badge is for a good answer to a low-rep question, so it's clearly behaviour that should be encouraged, if anything.

If I vote up an answer, it's because I think that answer is helpful to the community; whether it's helpful to the OP I don't presume to judge. If the question shouldn't be here, then the answer has a higher hurdle to clear, but it's not impossible. And not allowing rep for answering poorly worded questions would turn us into a bunch of snobs, answering each others' questions but not allowing outsiders in.

(FWIW, I would approve of disallowing rep for acceptance on closed questions;but I doubt whether that would make enough difference to be worth the change.)

Answer 5

Well, consider this: Not everyone always agrees on whether a question is off-topic or general reference. Should you really be penalized for answering a question that you felt was valuable, even if nobody else did?

Also, do we really want to penalize the responders when the OP failed to realize the question was a duplicate. Obviously if you recognize the question is a dup, you should vote to close it, but are we really expecting everyone to check for duplicates before answering a question? That seems like a lot of wasted cycles throughout the community.

Seems easier just to avoid upvoting answers from users who "ought to know better".