16
$\begingroup$

I recently posted an answer to a users question, which at that time was valid. The original poster later edited the question with a specific condition, which deprecated my (and several other users) answer(s). What is the rule of thumb in a situation like this? I guess the best thing to do is to update my answer to satisfy the newly added conditions. But what if I am not able to do this? Do I delete my answer?

$\endgroup$
  • 12
    $\begingroup$ Or, just add a note to your answer. Say your answer applies to the question before it was changed. $\endgroup$ – GEdgar Jun 23 '14 at 13:26
  • 25
    $\begingroup$ If edits are made after several answers have already been added, I'd argue the edits should be rolled back and a new question should be started instead. $\endgroup$ – Ayman Hourieh Jun 23 '14 at 16:11
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @AymanHourieh Yes. $\endgroup$ – Did Jun 23 '14 at 17:15
  • 11
    $\begingroup$ @Ayman: In theory and as a rule I agree. I would make an exception in those occasions, when the question is "suspiciously trivial". IMHO Occam's razor suggests that the OP made a mistake transcribing the question. Waiting for a confirmation is then called for. At the very least the eager answerers should wait for the five minute grace period to expire. After all, the OP is typically busy proof-reading and may be unable to comment promptly. Note that edits within that five minute window won't show in the edit history. $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Jun 23 '14 at 18:14
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ In this particular case I don't think the edit changed the question (unless I'm missing out on some edit made within 5 minutes of creating the question). I think it was clear that OP's question was "what part of my working is incorrect?" rather than "Show that ...". Your answer ignores OP's proposed solution and gives another one instead. $\endgroup$ – Samuel Jun 25 '14 at 13:37
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ You are correct. On the other hand, without the specific requirement that was added in the edit, the OP's method seemed unnecessarily tedious. The simplification I presented would have been preferable, and it would also have highlighted the error in the OP's calculations, would he/she stick with them. $\endgroup$ – fromGiants Jun 25 '14 at 15:04
5
$\begingroup$

I agree with Ayman Hourieh:

If edits are made after several answers have already been added, I'd argue the edits should be rolled back and a new question should be started instead.

provided that the original version contained a clear, reasonable question (which just happened to be not the question that OP intended).

On the other hand, if the original question was unclear, and the answers were based on guesses at what the question asked, then the answerers have only themselves to blame: they should have commented and/or voted to close as unclear instead of entering a speed-typing competition. The purpose of putting questions on hold as unclear is precisely to avoid creating a mess like this in the first place.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Would up vote anyway, but the first sentence in the last paragraph really makes this answer. $\endgroup$ – Git Gud Jan 1 '15 at 9:38

You must log in to answer this question.

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