-4
$\begingroup$

I would like add more bounty to this question to have it more likely answered and signal my additional interest, so to say Superbounty / Multibounty.

But someone else set a bounty, which puts a lockout for additional bounties.

The easiest solution might be to let users just add bounty leaving all else equal (original bounty offerer may still decide, or bounty decision split).

By the comments below, I like to add following example: "A user awards 50 bounty to a question. 10 other users like the question and think it deserves more bounty so it be answered more likely." -> Currently, the bounty would be 50 while actual interest were >200. So this question is 'bounty-undervalued'. If every user can only award 50 and needs to wait for a week for the previous bounty to vest (as 'serial bounty'), the question may remain unanswered and undervalued for entire time. Having questions with higher bounties collectively would make them more attractive and they get more attention and better answers.

It was suggested that a Serialbounty could be better than Superbounty. I think there is no problem to let each user decide which bounty he wants to add; the fact that one cannot currently add his bounty if he thinks the question deserves it seems missing feature.

Likewise, any question can currently be upvoted by unlimited users, but it cannot have multiple bounties.

Can you please add the feature for Superbounties?

Thanks.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Or you can wait four days. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila♦ Jul 1 '14 at 22:10
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Wouldn't it benefit the question, if it is truly interesting, to be on the featured list for two weeks with two bounties rather than just one week with two bounties? $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila♦ Jul 1 '14 at 22:18
  • $\begingroup$ (Unless you expect to be suspended/deleted within a week, there's no real reason to rush into that. It is true that we live in a society where everything is fast and "right now", but this is not always necessary. Learning how to be patient is a good thing.) $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila♦ Jul 1 '14 at 22:19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I am not asking for more time, I just ask the same right to place a bounty. If a question deserves more bounty, it should have it. $\endgroup$ – emcor Jul 1 '14 at 22:22
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Your arguments don't make sense to me. I'm sorry. You'll have to do better if you want to be convincing. I claimed that having two bounties which will place the question for two weeks, rather than one, on the featured list will increase its exposure and thus are likely to increase interest in the question. Having two simultaneous bounties seems to me only as a mean for someone who doesn't want to wait. How can someone know there are two bounties before entering the thread? Why would someone enter there? Oh, because they saw it on the featured list? My point exactly. Two bounties, two weeks. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila♦ Jul 1 '14 at 22:24
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ What? No. I don't propose anything. I propose that when you want to give out a second bounty, you wait for the first to end. That you learn to act like an adult and show some patience. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila♦ Jul 1 '14 at 22:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Why shouldnt I have the option to place the bounty to increase the interest in the question immediately, like the user before me aswell? And if the bounty is too low, the question may not be answered both times, despite it could have double bounty. $\endgroup$ – emcor Jul 1 '14 at 22:34
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I don't see how this is going to increase interest, and how it is going to increase interest more than having two consecutive bounties. But I see there's no sense in trying to continue this conversation. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila♦ Jul 1 '14 at 22:36
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ To increase interest is the purpose of any bounty in the first place. The decision on when to place one's bounty should be up to the user, he may place it simultaneously or subsequently. $\endgroup$ – emcor Jul 1 '14 at 22:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ youtube.com/watch?v=-pXWTG7XzH4 $\endgroup$ – Did Jul 2 '14 at 8:22
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I still don't see what's wrong with the current system of having subsequent bounties. $\endgroup$ – user61527 Jul 4 '14 at 0:03
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ This question appears to be off-topic because the author keeps bumping it with pointless edits. There is no need for Superbounties, Multibounties or Mega-Giant Hyperbounties. $\endgroup$ – user147263 Jul 4 '14 at 0:52
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ @emcor Please stop bumping this question with trivial edits; it brings it to the front-page, and people expect that there is something meaningful that's new. The community's opinion on this issue seems to be pretty clear. $\endgroup$ – user61527 Jul 5 '14 at 1:47
4
$\begingroup$

The suggested "feature" does not seem to have any compelling benefits over the existing framework, allowing the bounties to be offered serially on a (possibly unanswered) Question.

It does seem to be confusing, in that having multiple bounties on the same Question in overlapping timeframes makes assumptions and/or raises issues about the mechanism for awarding a bounty. Folks seem to have enough difficulty understanding when they can decide about awarding a bounty under the current framework. But with two concurrent bounties outstanding the overlapping information about amounts and intentions for offering bounties would be harder yet to follow.

In the simplest case OP here proposes to be able to inflate the value of an existing bounty out of their own fund of reputation. I don't feel this would attract as much interest as two serial bounties, should the first prove inadequate to get the quality of Answer that a potential "inflater" wants to see. And it seems a rare case indeed that the second bounty offerer would wish to let the first offerer make a decision (perhaps hastily because of time limitations) about the disposition of the combined bounty.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ "But with two concurrent bounties outstanding the overlapping information about amounts and intentions for offering bounties would be harder yet to follow." Perhaps what OP is proposing is just to add value to the bounty, without any change to the intentions or the timeframe, and with the original bounty-offerer having control over who gets the entire bounty. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Jul 2 '14 at 2:57
  • $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson: Perhaps. This is also the assumption in my 2nd paragraph. $\endgroup$ – hardmath Jul 2 '14 at 7:28
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Your second paragraph mentions "overlapping timeframes" and "overlapping information about the intentions". I'm suggesting no overlapping timeframes and no overlapping intentions; an increase in the bounty amount, and nothing but an increase in the bounty amount. Where it used to say, "100 points", it will change to "200 points", with no other changes of any kind. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Jul 2 '14 at 7:34
  • $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson: "For sufficiently large values of 2...". Sorry, I meant the third (last) paragraph. $\endgroup$ – hardmath Jul 2 '14 at 7:35
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks for your answer; I see you are suggesting some additional problems that may come up, but maybe you could rather propose a solution on which rules to set to make Multibounty possible? I think we may keep the time fixed to 1 week for all multibounties, and post a list on which bounty by which user. That is not too complicated in my opinion. $\endgroup$ – emcor Jul 2 '14 at 9:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @emcor: Everybody may have their opinion about stealing money from a bank. But people shouldn't choose whether or not to do it, they just shouldn't do it. Just because you may be able to form an opinion on something doesn't mean you should be allowed to choose whether or not to follow it. If we could, a lot of people would. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila♦ Jul 2 '14 at 11:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @AsafKaragila Bounty is legal feature on SE, I am just asking to add more bounty to a question which one may think it should have it. I see no problem with that. I appreciate your thoughts on some loopholes in this regard, but that doesnt mean the feature shouldnt be implemented. $\endgroup$ – emcor Jul 2 '14 at 15:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @emcor: If you insist to ignore the content of my comments, I have nothing more to add. Have a nice day. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila♦ Jul 2 '14 at 15:29

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