9
$\begingroup$

I recently asked this question on this meta. However, it was marked as the duplicate of this question. But the latter question has had no answer and even less number of comments than the first one. In this case, is it advisable to mark my question as the duplicate of the second question?

$\endgroup$
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ I've been wondering about this. Perhaps closing as a duplicate should bump the old question, with some exceptions? $\endgroup$ – dfeuer Sep 11 '13 at 19:14
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ I suggested on another thread that "closed" might be replaced by "redirected". If in addition a question which was the target of a redirection attracted a modest bounty if it had no existing answer, and also bumped the "duplicate", that would help to consolidate comment an answers in a single place. I think some attention also needs to be paid to the tagging of duplicates (which may have radically different tags). $\endgroup$ – Mark Bennet Sep 11 '13 at 21:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I was under the impression that to close-as-duplicate, the proposed duplicate Question needed an Answer that either had been accepted or up-voted. If I can find the documentation of that, I'll post the details. $\endgroup$ – hardmath Sep 17 '13 at 13:33
  • $\begingroup$ I see that the issue is about closing questions on Meta.Math, for which we might want to be a little more flexible. $\endgroup$ – hardmath Sep 17 '13 at 13:42
3
$\begingroup$

Here's the thread on Meta.SO that posted right after an automated check was implemented that any proposed "duplicate" in closing (as duplicate) requires an Answer either Accepted or up-voted:

We should be able to close questions as duplicates of any question -- Meta SO

Note that the suggested feature (reversing the restriction as to closing as duplicates) was ultimately "status declined".

Apparently this automated restriction only applies to the subject matter sites, not the meta discussion ones (which makes sense to me). In the context of discussing policy and site management, flexibility in judging whether timeframes justify a clean-slate makes sense (to me). To that extent I'm in favor of not having the automated restriction on Meta sites. It is possible to raise valid meta Questions that go unanswered but gather support or not as reflected in voting on the Question itself.

Particular instances are then debatable, and it certainly makes sense to want to preserve the better commented of two duplicates, given that neither is Answered. Some of that purpose would be served by linking the two Questions.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .