Recently this question was edited so as to have two separate questions within the same post (after the OP tried to ask me the second question directly in comments on an unrelated question and I pointed out that that wasn't appropriate for comments).

Searching the meta reveals some questions about multiple questions appearing in a single post but they all seem to pertain to elementary questions, questions by new users or posts in which the intended question is unclear; none of which are the case here.

The behaviour shown in the linked question feels slightly wrong to me, though I cannot precisely put my finger on why (so this may be the wrong response on my part).

Below I give some potential reasons that I came up with that the behaviour doesn't match the expectation for the site. Are any of them, or any other reasons, good reasons that this behaviour isn't okay or is my initial gut reaction simply wrong?

The two questions are (tenuously?) related since both arise from background in the same section of a textbook but otherwise are quite different and will have different (and possibly lengthy) answers.

One potential problem then is that it is less likely that answers to this question will be useful to many others since they will be bloated and address multiple issues.

A second potential issue is that the second question shows little effort to reach a solution on the part of the user (the question is of the form "does $x$ imply $y$?" with no attempt at a solution); though it does have some relevant context since this context already appeared for the first question before the edit.

If I'm honest, another reason I'm uncomfortable is that editing this question rather than asking a new one seems like an attempt to just exploit the bounty system so that a single bounty can be placed on two questions and so that the user doesn't have to wait to offer a bounty on the second question.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The link for "this" points to a meta question, with a similar topic to yours, from about $3$ and a half years ago. However, the context of your question text indicates to me you meant to link to a recent main site question. If that is so, please correct the link. Thanks. $\endgroup$ – John Omielan May 23 at 21:14
  • $\begingroup$ @JohnOmielan whoops, I copied the wrong link. Thanks for pointing that out. Now fixed. $\endgroup$ – Rhys Steele May 23 at 21:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Given that a bounty was placed on a version of a Question with only a single problem, I'd be inclined to rollback the version that now has two problems, leaving a comment explaining the thought for OP that when a bounty is offered the time is passed for moving the goal posts. If the OP reverts the rollback, then one should not engage in future rollbacks, but instead flag the Question for moderator attention. $\endgroup$ – hardmath May 23 at 22:00
  • $\begingroup$ Upon checking the edit log it appears that the edit was made just before adding the bounty (I had confused this question with another since that user has recently had a lot of questions on similar topics with very similar preambles in their body that have bounties offered on them). I do however still have qualms about the incentives to package together different questions so that they can share the bounty. $\endgroup$ – Rhys Steele May 23 at 22:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Given that there is such a long pre-amble to the questions, it feels like it would be inefficient to repeat all of that somewhere else just to ask the additional question, and given that they made the edit before adding the bounty I would feel inclined to let it slide. Although anybody who answered before the edit should probably be entitled to having their answer accepted. $\endgroup$ – Jack Crawford May 24 at 0:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JackCrawford This assumes that the long preamble is necessary for the second question (or indeed the first one; I suspect the user could have shortened the preamble significantly but chose to just screenshot the book instead). If this were the case, I think I'd agree with you but this really isn't true here. The preamble that isn't just a screenshot of a book is really relevant only to question one and question two only really requires the statement of condition $(f)$ from the book, the rest isn't relevant. $\endgroup$ – Rhys Steele May 24 at 13:09

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .