I am very strongly against this.
The whole point of a Q/A site is to generate useful questions and answers. Where would we be if we didn't allow answers to perfectly valid questions anymore?
If you don't need any more answers, ignore it, but there might always be a better answer that is not only useful to you, but all the others reading.
Don't forget that ...
The help article I accidentally created two accounts; how do I merge them? indicates:
If you have two accounts that you would like to join together, please edit the ‘about me’ section of each profile to say “merge keep” and "merge delete" and then contact us. You will need to provide links to the two profiles you would like to merge - we'll merge the one ...
I would actually make an argument somewhat different from that of Journeyman Geek.
The reason is simple: The question specifies a version of Acrobat Reader. It even did so back in April 2015 when it was originally posted.
An answer for a much later version that works differently from the version being asked about isn't an answer to the question that is ...
This encourages others to post alternative solutions (or at least doesn't discourage them like an already accepted answer would). Source:
Wait 48 hours. You must wait 2 days from the time you originally asked your question before you can accept your own answer. This gives other users a chance to answer the question in good faith, and earn the accepted ...
Originally, the bounty system was strongly linked to "accepting" an answer:
There are three possible outcomes:
You accept an answer. The bounty is subtracted from your reputation,
and awarded to the answerer.
You do not accept an answer. Any answer that was a) provided after the
bounty period started and b) has 2 or more upvotes is ...
I'm not sure the two cases are really symmetric.
When the asker marks an answer as solving their problem (by accepting it), then effectively by definition of the tick it is the one that was most helpful to them. As the most helpful answer, it deserves the bounty and so it is safe to automatically allocate (unless, for some reason, the user has already ...
Is there ever a good reason for not to up-vote the answer (except for not having sufficient privileges)?
Yes, the user decided that acceptance was enough of a reward.
My original "answer" was just an aside that it's completely up to the user to decide to accept & vote up the answer. I can't read their mind, neither do I tell them to vote up. If their ...
It depends on how substantial your adjustments to the post are. Regular editing guidelines apply, even if it's an answer to your own question.
For your information, 3 people reviewed your edit. 1 person approved it, the other two rejected it for the following reasons:
This edit is incorrect or an attempt to reply to or comment on the existing post.
Sorry, the only person who can affect the accepted state of the answer is the question author. If you believe an answer to be incorrect, you should downvote; that signals to other users (including the question author) that something is amiss. You have already commented, which is also a great thing to do because it explains to everyone involved why the answer ...
No, this is not possible.
It has been suggested that we allow others to mark accepted an answer on the questioner's behalf, but not likely to happen.
The accepted answer is the one chosen by the person asking as they feel it best solves their problem.
In this case the accepted answer was posted by the person who also asked the question, and self-accepted answers do not receive the preferential treatment during sorting that an accepted answers otherwise would.
This is intentional, and has been the case for self-acceptance since it was introduced.
No one but the original poster can change the accepted answer, remember that answers get ordered by votes(by default) so an answer with more votes will be displayed first
Actually, when sorting by votes, accepted answers go first, then the rest in descending score order (with random order when two answers have the same score). Example
Thanks to DB for the ...
From the valued associate Nick Craver's answer:
Now that accepting an answer and awarding the bounty are 2 distinct actions - possibly from different users as well, you can no longer award the bounty to your own answer.
This will take effect next build. The "+100" award button simply won't show beside your own answers.
Hence, the functionality for ...
Above the answer list, there's three tabs: active (descending by change), oldest (ascending by age), and votes, the last one being the default when you haven't changed the order.
In all of these sort modes, the accepted answer is first only if not by the same user as the question.
So your request is actually the default, and (AFAIK) has been from the ...
When sorting by votes, the accepted answer is promoted to the top, regardless of votes - unless it's a self-answer, in which case normal vote sort is used without promotion.
No change in sort order. Normally, accepted answers are “docked” under the question. This is not true for ...
Well, the question does show a certain amount of lack of research, and the question as is is really poor quality.
I wouldn't count it as a good question. I'm not a fan of spoon feeding either, and this isn't one of those seemingly poor questions that somehow attracted an epic answer, its quite literally linux 101.
I'd be disinclined to reopen the ...
No - if a question is self answered, the (self) selected answer is not automatically on top. As such its by upvotes and in random order within answers of the same number of votes.
This is intended behaviour.
I'll focus first on your question here and then on the question on the main site that prompted it.
Your question here asks if you need to prove an accepted answer works, and then paraphrases it to ask whether your question is unclear. Those actually are different questions.
No, you don't need to prove an answer works. You are free to ...
Which answer the questioner believes helps them understand the solution to their problem is completely up to them.
What you can do it post a better, more understandable and more complete answer and let OP and the community vote as they will.
Answers are for the community and OP, not for the answerer.
Just because another answer references older technology ...
I would have accepted the answer you did.
I really like that it quoted the different questions; that made it much easier to read. Speaking of different questions, asking so many different things in one post is frowned upon (and why your question was closed as too broad).
The accepted answer is to the point where appropriate (e.g. in response to #3) and ...
What worked for you. Especially where it's a detailed, unique answer. Unless you feel another answer is awesome and you tested it.
It's not cool to copy/slightly modify an existing answer or worse "x's answer worked" as an answer but here, I see nothing wrong with picking your own.
It is your decision whether or not to accept the answer:
Decide if the answer is helpful, and then...
Vote on it (if you have earned the appropriate voting privilege). Vote up answers that are helpful and well-researched, and vote down
answers that are not. Other users will also vote on answers to your
Accept it. As the asker, you ...
As far as I know that IS how they're ordered. Accepted first, then highest vote count and descending, with some randomization for equal-voted answers (to prevent me-too type voting).
If I'm wrong, please correct me.
How can I remove malicious spyware, malware, adware, viruses, trojans or rootkits from my PC? Seems to be a fair proof of case.
Upvoting requires 15 reputation, so new users asking their first question cannot upvote unless their question has reached +3 or they had other Stack Exchange activity before.
Other than that, it's up to the asker to decide how helpful your answer was. If they feel that your answer is not very helpful, but is the best they can reasonably expect on the site, ...
I have done this on occasions (although it happens rather rarely).
It happens when I get a "meh...." answer -- it's pretty much the equivalent of, uh, "forced accept" on Other Sites.
It's hard to explain, so just look at this example to see what I mean:
Compile + Run a Single File in Visual Studio?:
Is it possible to somehow script Visual Studio to ...