# Double standard in 'good answer' criteria and question reopening

The question Intuition about whether to switch in box problem was closed as a duplicate of Card doubling paradox.

The OP of the duplicate question needs further clarifications after reading the answers in the original question and he said so in the comments before the question was closed.

Also you'll notice that the accepted answer to the original question is just a link and that, I believe, does not qualify as answer by MSE's standards.

This question should be reopened because:

1. The original question doesn't have an acceptable answer, (for it is a link).
2. The OP of the duplicate question needs clarification.

I mentioned this in a comment in the duplicate question before the it was closed, but it was deleted.

Edit: and the link forwards to an article which isn't even free.

• We have many users on the site with sufficient rep to vote to close. It is not surprising that lots of themhave differing standards... – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez Jul 5 '13 at 19:12
• @MarianoSuárez-Alvarez The $14-0$ in my question above invalidates what you just said. – Git Gud Jul 5 '13 at 19:14
• Not at all. That people have diferring standards does not imply in the least that they always reach different conclusions. – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez Jul 5 '13 at 19:16
• @MarianoSuárez-Alvarez A link either is accepted as an answer or it isn't. What happened in my question clearly shows that a link isn't acceptable as an answer. Call it standard or conclusion, the point is that the outcome wasn't the same. – Git Gud Jul 5 '13 at 19:18
• I don't see, frankly, why a link can be accepted as an answer sometimes and sometimes not. – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez Jul 5 '13 at 19:27
• I have difficulty deciding if this is a call for reopening the question or an instigator for a more general discussion about link answers. (NB. I agree with reopening and have voted accordingly.) – Lord_Farin Jul 5 '13 at 19:33
• @Lord_Farin The call for reopening is a mere byproduct and a catalyst for the more general discussion. – Git Gud Jul 6 '13 at 3:06
• Discussion about what? This post asks no question, it merely states some facts and some opinions about the specifics of a closure. If you want to "catalyse" a general discussion, you should state clearly its subject. – Did Jul 6 '13 at 8:15
• @Did The word discussion was badly chosen to convey my idea, I went with Farin's choice of words. It's supposed to be more of a call for attention for this criteria duality. And as for what it is about, I think it's clear enough: links sometimes being accepted as answers and sometimes not. I don't mean accepted in the sense that the OP clicks on $\color{green} \checkmark$, but that the community upvotes the answer. – Git Gud Jul 6 '13 at 9:35
• Thanks for the explanations. I still see no question (sorry). – Did Jul 6 '13 at 10:44
• @Did There isn't one. It's call for attention. Is this not acceptable on meta? – Git Gud Jul 6 '13 at 10:55
• I don't know. I thought not. – Did Jul 6 '13 at 10:58
• About 8 of the top 15 voted "Questions" on meta are calls for attention without questions. – Zander Jul 7 '13 at 1:20
• What is "the OP of the duplicate question" and what does it mean for it to be "clarified"? – celtschk Jul 9 '13 at 14:27
• @celtschk: OP is a common abbreviation for "original poster". In context it refers to the poster of the duplicate question asking for further clarification. By the book such clarification should be sought/given on the linked Question to which the current Q is referred as duplicate. – hardmath Jul 9 '13 at 14:29