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
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »

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.

Review Suggested Edit

You can't approve or reject suggested edits because you haven't yet earned the Edit Posts ability.

Approved.
This suggested edit was approved and applied to the post about 3 years ago by Monica Cellio‭.

0 / 255
  • Good question. A reaction doesn't bestow benefits (reputation, progress toward abilities, or preferential placement on the page), so in one sense reacting to your own post is harmless. On the other hand, it does add an attention-grabbing marker, and it might make sense to restrict that.
  • I've been thinking of the "works for me" reaction as a solution to the "accepted answer" problem -- we've heard a desire for the asker to be able to mark an answer (or mark the question as resolved), and other Q&A platforms have the "green checkmark" concept. But we also felt that this shouldn't depend on the asker, who sometimes never comes back to follow up, and we felt that a "works for me" marker that anybody could use would meet the need and then some.
  • So, all that said, should you be able to mark your own answer as "works for me"? It seems handy in the case of self-answers, particularly where somebody asked a question and later figured it out and came back to post an answer. Other people who are scanning the page for vetted solutions will be looking for the marker and would miss a working self-answer if we blocked that.
  • We could probably add "prevent self-reactions" to the configuration of individual reactions, so a community could allow self-declaration for outdatedness but not workingness. I didn't give this much thought during design and testing, I admit. Or is is sufficient to show who that reaction comes from? We already show who's reacting; would some additional indicator for the author of the post be helpful?
  • Good question. A reaction doesn't bestow benefits (reputation, progress toward abilities, or preferential placement on the page), so in one sense reacting to your own post is harmless. On the other hand, it does add an attention-grabbing marker, and it might make sense to restrict that.
  • I've been thinking of the "works for me" reaction as a solution to the "accepted answer" problem -- we've heard a desire for the asker to be able to mark an answer (or mark the question as resolved), and other Q&A platforms have the "green checkmark" concept. But we also felt that this shouldn't depend on the asker, who sometimes never comes back to follow up, and we felt that a "works for me" marker that anybody could use would meet the need and then some.
  • So, all that said, should you be able to mark your own answer as "works for me"? It seems handy in the case of self-answers, particularly where somebody asked a question and later figured it out and came back to post an answer. Other people who are scanning the page for vetted solutions will be looking for the marker and would miss a working self-answer if we blocked that.
  • We could probably add "prevent self-reactions" to the configuration of individual reactions, so a community could allow self-declaration for outdatedness but not workingness. I didn't give this much thought during design and testing, I admit. Or is it sufficient to show who that reaction comes from? We already show who's reacting; would some additional indicator for the author of the post be helpful?

Suggested about 3 years ago by Canina‭