2

Since the purpose of this site is to promote learning, it is my opinion that questioners should be required to wait at least 24 hours to give the community time to see and respond to it, thus increasing the quality of the content of the entire site.

| |
  • 2
    +1 Even though we might not be able to enforce such a requirement due to the way the site is designed, I hope that we can have a better way to tell our users so. I've seen far too many times that our new users accepted an answer as soon as they got one, and later someone else pointed out that the accepted answer wasn't entirely correct or even downright wrong. – Damkerng T. Jun 26 '14 at 6:35
  • I think it's a good practice to wait at least 12-24 hours on ALL stack exchanges, not just ELL. That said, I don't think it ought to be enforced. @DamkerngT. - I've seen that happen elsewhere on SE, too. – J.R. Jun 26 '14 at 20:32
  • I don't know how you could require it, but you certainly should encourage it, as DamkerngT. does. – StoneyB on hiatus Jun 26 '14 at 22:15
2

I think imposing a mandatory 24-hour delay on "accepting" answers would be a terrible idea.

Firstly, I've no doubt this would significantly increase the number of questions that don't have an accepted answer, which I think would be a bad thing.

Secondly, it stands to reason the OP himself is likely to be one of the least knowledge users interacting with the question (that's why he's asking). Future visitors should pay far more attention to the answer with the highest number of upvotes.

Finally, it's worth noting that the OP can always reassign his acceptance to a different answer later. It's up to those of us who do know with some reasonable level of confidence which answers are good or bad to upvote (and downvote) appropriately.

| |

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .