Marking specific posts as a contribution to the answer

[Borzoi]

I think it would be a good idea for the question asker to mark the posts or the users who contributed to finding the answer to their query. The reason for this is because I occasionally see that post such as "What [previous user] said" which isn't in any way contributing to the solution yet when the thread gets marked as solved, they get credit for contributing to the solution.

[Dani]

The reason we don't want to go down this route, like sites like Stack Overflow and Google Groups do, is because DaniWeb is all about encouraging discussions, where there can always be something to add, and it's often the case that multiple people contribute to helping someone.

[Borzoi]

I meant marking multiple posts/users in the thread as contributing rather than just a single post/user. I agree that most often there are multiple users which contribute to the solution so marking just the one will not be suitable for the Daniweb community.

I'll try an example of what I mean.

Question asker: I have a problem with XXX. Here is my [code]
Poster 1: You have an error on line 5. Try changing to [code]
Poster 2: In addition to Poster 1's suggestion, you could also try [code]
Poster 3: What Poster 1 said

At the moment, all three posters would get credit for contributing but Poster 3 didn't actually contribute.

What I'm proposing is that since Poster 1 and Poster 2 contributed to the solution, the question asker, when marking the thread as solved would mark those two users as contributing.

I just want to clarify that this is only a suggestion, not a bug or complaint.

[deceptikon]

While I agree in concept, in practice that would be too much to ask of the thread owner. Even the way things are we have problems getting thread owners to mark the thread as solved. Making the process harder by asking them to go through the thread and pick out the most helpful answers would likely result in a marked drop in solved threads. ;)

[Borzoi]

That's a good point which I didn't think of.

[Dani]

One of the aspects of the algorithm which considers rewards points is to look at Q&As that have been marked solved, and then to focus in on responses that have been upvoted.

[Reverend Jim]

Depending on the mood I am in at the time, I may or may not delete posts like "what he said" as having zero content. Call it a loose interpretation of a Daniweb rule which states (in part) Do ensure that all posts contain relevant content and substance

[happygeek]

What deceptikon said... ;-)

[happygeek]

Rev, I generally only apply that rule if the posting also has a signature file with link. After all, the rule actually states in full: Do ensure that all posts contain relevant content and substance and are not simply vehicles for external links.

[Reverend Jim]

So if someone posts

correct horse battery staple

that would be ok if it doesn't have a spam signature?

[deceptikon]

that would be ok if it doesn't have a spam signature?

Not really, but it's far more of a judgment call than obvious signature spam. For a first offense I'd likely leave it be. If posts like that are common, I'd be more inclined to delete flat out due to lack of substance and send a PM (but refrain from issuing infractions unless the PM is ignored). If it's all the member posts, I have no sympathy.

One thing to keep in mind about spammy posts without a signature is that a signature can be added at any time. A not uncommon tactic is to create umpteen borderline spam posts and then add a signature link. So I'm somewhat hesitant about letting borderline spam slide when there's a good possibility for it to become full blown spam.

My general recommendation would be to bring in at least one other mod to help make the call so that we don't end up subjectively deciding what constitutes substance on a whim. It's a fine line, to be sure.

[happygeek]

What deceptikon said. Again ;-)

I have used 'cat on keyboard' as a reason to delete posts consisting of just 'r4fdctr£$%3&%' or similar before.