6
$\begingroup$

Recently there have been a lot of questions which are bountied but PSQ (Problem Statement Question). Here is one, another one although now closed, not a bounty not but once was and many more which one can get to know by following all action in the chat room cured. Seeing so many bounties PSQs I opened this post for the discussion for mods and other users regarding this. As pointed by user Saad

The issue in the bounty questions is that it opens great possibility for abuse by disabling closure/deletion review in the meantime. So a patch to this, in his opinion, is to enable reviews even if the bounty is on, but also keep the countdown of bounty going on when a (bountied) post is closed for pending improvements by the OP unless the post is deleted. In short, it's better to keep the review process running in parallel.

Now a days some users are starting bounty question which prevents the closure of the question for some time. Although these could be closed after their bounty ends it is hard to keep a track of all these. As point by user amWhy

The bounty feature (typically posted by an answerer or the asker, awarding the lowest about: 50 Rep, have turned to bounties to prevent the closure of what would likely be closed. Unfortunately, while all this is happening, mods are rarely to be found. It won't always be like this, but I suggest is too often "like this" " more mods expect Xander Handerson absent from the most active chats, like CURED, and Math Mods' Office chatrooms. Perhaps we need coordinated flagging.

If you want to add anything in the question you can definitely do that by editing the question. Upvote for agreement and downvote for disagreement. Hope to see a long discussion.

$\endgroup$
25
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ I assume that the “protection of bountied against closure” is a network-wide feature. Here are some (old) discussions on the main meta: How to handle off-topic questions with bounty?, How can we close questions with bounties?. – I do not claim that the current situation is ideal, but I doubt that it is possible to change the mechanism for a specific site. $\endgroup$
    – Martin R
    Jun 27 at 17:36
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ This has also been discussed several times on Meta Stack Exchange. See, for instance: Allow users to vote to close bountied questions and its linked questions. I think the official stance is that these occurrences are infrequent enough that flagging for moderator attention is a sufficient method to handle them. I'm not sure whether in reality that is true or correct, and I think it's worth taking another look at it; but the official responses over on Meta Stack Exchange don't look promising in this regard. $\endgroup$ Jun 27 at 17:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Think it another way. This PSQ fell through the crack for 4 years before someone put a bounty on it, which results in this meta post. The bounty just bring more attentions to the post, which is a good thing. If it is bad enough users will not forget to vote. $\endgroup$ Jun 27 at 17:50
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Jitendra, nor anyone, @ArcticChar, using a bounty, is trying to game the system. But it has happened often enough, that the questions asked here is worthy of mod input, SE CM input. Certainly, the majority , e.g. Pearl Drive's mission, the majority of bounties are legit. But I hope you understand, that the negation of "there is an increasing minority of posts that seem to be escaping a closure count, to buy an extra week, for 50 rep" is not your example. "There exists a bounty request that is sincere." Nothing in this post claimed *all bounties are nefarious. $\endgroup$
    – amWhy
    Jun 27 at 18:00
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I am with this : but we should start breaking down the arguments that are "pro" not closing bountied questions first. Quantity is no more a telling point in two ways (1) We've got far too many bountied questions at one time which are close worthy (2) The generally increased flow of questions means that a question which escapes closure for two days isn't automatically fit to be open : it just means that no one saw it, and that's more likely nowadays. Now, if we can't work the system, then all we can do is discourage people from answering the question in our way : downvote, leave a comment? $\endgroup$ Jun 27 at 18:41
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I agree, @Teresa. There has been an uptick in what Jitendra describes. This post is not calling for the end of bounties on math.se. It is asking for a system of not all or nothing: NOT either: all bountied questions are sacred for seven days; nor a system in which absoluely NO question can be bountied. It recognizes the value of when bounties are placed on well asked, or improved, posts. But it questions the automatic sacred protection that giving up 50 rep "buys" a full week before a crappy question can be closed, deleted, etc. $\endgroup$
    – amWhy
    Jun 27 at 19:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "Now a days new users are starting bounty question...." I take new users to mean users showing up for the first time. They have reputation 1, so they can't place a bounty on a question. Also, no one can put a bounty on a question until the question has been up for two days. If a question has been up for two days, and hasn't been closed, the chances are it isn't going to be closed anyway (unless something happens to bring attention to it). The user putting up the bounty has good reason to think the question is OK, if it has survived two days without being closed. $\endgroup$ Jun 27 at 23:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson sorry the new user was a typo mistake. I meant some users. Many times it happens that the question escapes many users eyes as every minute you get one minute. It is not possible to have a quick check on them. The OP must also read the EOQS $\endgroup$
    – user876009
    Jun 28 at 2:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ No. of regular close vote needed is always 5, not 3. $\endgroup$ Jun 28 at 3:14
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Somwhat similar question from 2014: why can we not close questions which have an open bounty?/suspected case of opening 2nd account. $\endgroup$ Jun 28 at 3:54
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @JitendraSingh Now you got me confused. Your comment say that you're asking for a new feature to be implemented, but the question is not tagged (feature-request). And since we are talking about related post on this meta, there is also this feature request: Stop the decay of closing votes when a bounty is set. (It is different, but still related to bounties and closing.) $\endgroup$ Jun 28 at 4:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Here is a similar feature request on Meta Stack Exchange: Allow users to vote to close bountied questions (posted in 2012). So if you think that this would be a good idea, you might upvote that question. (And also the discussion there might be interesting to read.) $\endgroup$ Jun 28 at 5:33
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JitendraSingh I would only agree that B5, B7 are PSQs and will vote to close when the bounties expires. To me only B3, B6 are boarderline (and I won't call them PSQs). Some questions that you link are actually very nice and have sufficient contexts (to me). $\endgroup$ Jun 28 at 9:36
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Whether or not a question has sufficient context is quite subjective and you are entitled to your own opinion for sure (thus you are more than welcome to keep the comment, but of course that means you are ready to defend it when questioned). $\endgroup$ Jun 28 at 14:33
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I am sorry but I didn't understood what you want to say. I understood every line but didn't understand it as fully. Can u explain it in a simple way? $\endgroup$
    – user876009
    Jun 28 at 14:49
12
$\begingroup$

It is important to keep in mind that a question cannot be bountied immediately. It first needs to "survive" for some time on the site.

I think there is some point to preventing closures of bountied questions. The points is they get more visibility by being bountied and thus also more exposure to potential votes to close.

That said, if a question is bountied to avoid an ongoing process towards closure I tend to consider this as abuse. You can flag this.

Put differently, if a motion to close a question starts before it is bountied that's a reason for concern.

If there was no specific activity towards closing a question, it gets bountied and only then such an activity would be started that is entirely different. Arguably the reason why the question would get closed is that it got a bounty. Else it would have stayed unnoticed.

$\endgroup$
24
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Definitely you have said right but I see some things in your answers which make me feel this answer is not really good. First of them is that regarding first paragraph it is not necessary that everyone with >3000 reputation or having close vote privilege view the question. Since every 10 minute there are 15 question and it is not possible that every question get >50 views which make the question less prone to close and OP wrongly becomes confident and bounties the question. For the third part this is what abuse flag says math.stackexchange.com/conduct Here there is no where mentioned $\endgroup$
    – user876009
    Jun 28 at 2:51
  • $\begingroup$ (In continuation to last message) that a bountied question should be closed. For your last paragraph ya now it is happening frequent Bountied PSQs what to do regarding them? Can't we do some changes in system? $\endgroup$
    – user876009
    Jun 28 at 2:53
  • $\begingroup$ Typo in second message - that a bounty question should be closed if it is done forcefully to avoid closure $\endgroup$
    – user876009
    Jun 28 at 4:21
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Growing viewership would not lead to a growth of dissent with respect to the question , if the question itself wasn't suspect to start with. The problem with the "survival" theory is that questions with some tags that aren't common are likely to survive easily while also lacking context or at least being debatable. All in all, if you want increased reputation for your bounty, you have to make sure that your question is more than worth it (similar to self-answers) and the above questions did not. $\endgroup$ Jun 28 at 8:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It is true that without a bounty, a question would have gone unnoticed, and that means that vital feedback about the question will have been missing. This part I do agree with, and I think it probably goes some way to justifying why bountied questions should not be closed. I still feel that the option of closing them and refunding the bounty amount is better, but if this is not possible then that particular argument is good. $\endgroup$ Jun 28 at 8:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @TeresaLisbon that is true however I feel you are missing the point there have been multiple PSQs which weren't bountied and were older than 15 days but are still being bought to CURED chatroom. I feel if those bountied question weren't PSQs then we would have not wasted time on bountied PSQs and would have searched for old PSQs and deleted them so ultimately both will result in deleted althought bountied PSQs might be closed faster (if having the access) than old PSQs $\endgroup$
    – user876009
    Jun 28 at 8:59
  • $\begingroup$ @JitendraSingh Correct, excellent point. Basically, staying for two days is no longer a sign of being good enough. We eventually end up picking them up. $\endgroup$ Jun 28 at 9:10
  • $\begingroup$ every 10 minutes there are a little under 3 questions. $\endgroup$
    – Asinomas
    Jun 28 at 17:02
  • $\begingroup$ Nice factoid, @Yorch: on SE, on math.se, on math.meta SE, in this thread, in a chatroom, in all chatrooms on math.se, in all chatrooms on SE ...... ? How is this relevant in this thread. If it relates to math.se, that would be a great fact for Marin Sleziak's Congrats chat on math.se. $\endgroup$
    – amWhy
    Jun 28 at 17:06
  • $\begingroup$ @amWhy I'm just answering the claim made above that there's 15 questions every 10 minutes. $\endgroup$
    – Asinomas
    Jun 28 at 18:03
  • $\begingroup$ Ahhh, @Yorch. I hadn't read that far up the thread! Thanks for cluing me in! $\endgroup$
    – amWhy
    Jun 28 at 18:16
  • $\begingroup$ @quid can you please answer the first and second comment i asked in your answer $\endgroup$
    – user876009
    Jun 29 at 5:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Yorch No I think i was a but wrong however I do believe that in 10 minute at least 6-8 question come. Here's the proof i.stack.imgur.com/eaOwZ.png $\endgroup$
    – user876009
    Jun 30 at 5:35
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JitendraSingh on how to stop it, you flag the post as in need for moderator intervention and explain that the bounty was placed to stop an imminent closure. If the claim is coroborrated we will deal with it. $\endgroup$
    – quid Mod
    Jul 1 at 18:40
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @JitendraSingh the first problem is that it is not clear what will happen with the bounty. What do you think should happen? Regarding the first comment, my point is that if it were not for the bounty you would not know about the question to begin with and would not want to close it either. Thus, the question only becomes a target because there is a bounty on it. That should be avoided. To put it bluntly, instead of worrying about that bountied question just look around on the site and close three other ones that are equally bad. $\endgroup$
    – quid Mod
    Jul 1 at 18:44

You must log in to answer this question.