Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs

Dashboard
Notifications
Mark all as read
Q&A

Welcome to Codidact Meta!

Codidact Meta is the meta-discussion site for the Codidact community network and the Codidact software. Whether you have bug reports or feature requests, support questions or rule discussions that touch the whole network – this is the site for you.

Can we allow answerers to see if asker upvoted them?

+5
−10

When someone takes the time to answer a question, it's nice for that person to feel recognized and that they were helpful. While seeing upvotes is a good indication that the answer was helpful to the community in general, there's not any indication that the answer was specifically helpful to the person who originally asked it, as the asker's upvotes are just mixed in with the rest of the community's.

I certainly think that it's fine for there to be no concept of a single "accepted answer" controlled by the asker. However, I think that there should be some sort of way for the asker to recognize and thank the people who wrote helpful answers for me. This leads me to a bit of a conundrum:

  1. Should it be correct etiquette for the asker to leave a comment saying "Thanks" or the like on helpful answers? This was certainly discouraged on other Q&A sites I know of, though maybe it's the right answer here?
  2. Or, should there be some way for people (maybe just the specific answerer, or maybe for everyone) to see that the person who originally asked upvoted their answer?

I could brainstorm some other thoughts too like some dedicated "thank you" button or the like, but what makes the most sense in my first pass at the idea anyway is just adding some indication next to one's own answers that the asker upvoted it, and maybe some notification which could end up being some sort of standardized "thank you" for the experts who write the answers in a community.

Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

0 comment threads

5 answers

+4
−0

Should it be correct etiquette for the asker to leave a comment saying "Thanks" or the like on helpful answers? This was certainly discouraged on other Q&A sites I know of, though maybe it's the right answer here?

No.

Leaving comments that contain stuff like "Thank you", "Thanks", "Worked for me" is unhelpful, Since there is replacement for it, Which is Upvoting (Voting in general) is a very good replacement to it. If someone want to thank you or your answer worked for someone, so they can upvote and this will mean that you have helped someone.

Or, should there be some way for people (maybe just the specific answerer, or maybe for everyone) to see that the person who originally asked upvoted their answer?

New Feature.

As far as my information, The Codidact team is working on Reactions feature which means if the Asker want to thank you or the answer worked for the asker, so they can react with "Worked for me" reaction and their name will appear there. But Of Course, the Asker may Upvote and don't reaction, it is the Asker Opinion. At all, the feature didn't release yet and may not release and may release it and it won't success. so, it depends on the future. That is all.

Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

1 comment thread

General Comments (3 comments)
+7
−3

should there be some way for people (maybe just the specific answerer, or maybe for everyone) to see that the person who originally asked upvoted their answer?

No!

As already pointed out, this could very easily lead to undesirable situations. We don't want to give people ammunition with which to pester people to vote; it was bad enough on at least one site somewhere else where a particular user made a habit of asking bad questions and then pestering people with "how can my question have only downvotes when there are upvoted answers, if the answers are good then the question must be good, right?", without the ability for anyone to know how a particular user voted.

Also, if something like the ability to mark answers as "accepted", "outdated" or "dangerous" is implemented, I don't see how what you propose would add any value at all, especially considering that upvotes and downvotes carry no indication as to why any user voted the way they did. The latter would be far more interesting, and likely far more useful.

Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

0 comment threads

+0
−0

As I thought through this question and its several answers, I kept asking myself, "what value would it bring to the respondent or to Codidact to know that the querent specifically cared about their answer?"

I'm not qualified to go into the issue of psychological dependencies, but that's what this is touching on, isn't it? At best the flag would indicate that the answer was specifically useful to the querent (if knowing that actually has value...), but at worst it's only a way for the respondent to feel socially accepted in a specific way. What would it mean, after all, if the querent didn't flag an answer? Is that feedback without comment useful to the respondent? Should any respondent care that the querent specifically liked (or disliked by virtue of lacking the informative) their answer?

Inevitably services like Codidact gain an element of sociality — but they shouldn't. The world has progressed too far already toward the idea that everyone's a winner, everyone's a hero, everyone's a contributor — when in reality some are more valuable than others and every effort to "remedy" that simply lowers the value of those who are more valuable. Said another way, every aspect of sociality is a tool that can be used abusively to harm, and history has regrettably shown that humanity is very good at using a tool to harm.

So why provide the tool in the first place, unless there is a specific value to Codidact for doing so? (I frankly can't think of one.)

To that end, my recommendation is that Codidact's developers focus only on tools that serve Codidact and nothing more. Yes, individual users may benefit from those tools, but the opportunity for harm is strongly limited when the focus is the benefit of the service.

Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

0 comment threads

+0
−0

Usually, I will say no. Cause, I have experienced something. If we could see who had upvoted or downvoted then, we might get some hostility. Anyway, you was talking about only if answerer could see if questioner upvoted or downvoted.

I will say answerer doesn't have to see if questioner upvoted or downvoted. If they had seen your post and if that worked for him than, he will upvote or ignore (I personally don't suggest to ignore (some people usually don't like to upvote or downvote that's why I said that) but, if that answer is good than, other users in the community might upvote that). And, if they didn’t find that useful they will comment and downvote. After 1 or 2 comments he/she might ignore your comment cause, they might think that the answer isn’t useful and "I" believe he can't solve my problem. Then, they will downvote or ignore.

Some people have talked about reactions earlier so, I am not talking about that.


Should it be correct etiquette for the asker to leave a comment saying "Thanks"

The discussion had been done in Software Development Codidact.

While "Hello" and "Thank you" are noise (overhead) for the questions and answers, they are also part of how we actually interact with each other as human beings. So, I would let them be. ~ from above linked answer

I would like to add something in Alexei's "answer". "Asker have to say thanks upvote", (similar to this), that is completely his own wish. Asker can do what they want. We shouldn’t force them to say those things, or upvote. If you think that your answer is very helpful for that person than you can request him to upvote".


At first, I said you might get hostility if you could see who had upvoted. Voting abuse is available. If you ask a question in Stack Overflow and, if you asked the same question in Software Development Codidact then, if you don’t get any upvote or downvote in Stack Overflow then, you will get at least 1 downvote in Software Development Codidact. The same thing happens to Codidact also. If you see that a single person is down-voting (serial voting) all your post then, if you can know who that is then, you will downvote his posts either or, you will bad behave with him indirectly since you have to follow Code of Conduct so, you can't bad behave directly.


If you ever seen any voting abuse than, flag for moderator attention ~ said Staff Monica Cellio.

Currently, I am thinking to "let moderator see who had upvoted or downvoted".

Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

0 comment threads

+3
−3

Should it be correct etiquette for the asker to leave a comment saying "Thanks" or the like on helpful answers?

That's something a community should decide on its own; it doesn't need to be the same on every Codidact community. So the appropriate place to bring up that discussion would be in each community's Meta category.

Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

0 comment threads

Sign up to answer this question »

This community is part of the Codidact network. We have other communities too — take a look!

You can also join us in chat!

Want to advertise this community? Use our templates!