-1
\$\begingroup\$

When we mark a question as a duplicate and they are only 75% similar, there is a chance that the answers to the linked questions are not always applicable and thus useless for the questioner.

Especially when there are 15 answers each about 300-500 words and all but one are too general/specific to fit in the context of the new question.

So there should be a functionality to instead of this hint-box:

This question already has an answer here:

Another question 15 answers

We can make a hint-box like this:

This question already has an answer here:

Answer by Username to another question 15 answers

And link directly to the useful answer.

This can especially happen if one question is asking for and another one for pure rules. Or one question is very general and another one is quite specific.

\$\endgroup\$
5
\$\begingroup\$

This is one of the (many) reasons why we are only supposed to mark question as duplicate when they are 100% the same.

If we stick to that site rule, the situation shouldn't ever arise where we have to pick one answer to be the “right” answer for a duplicate question.

In other words, we would only need this feature if we were already doing something wrong, so instead let's just keep making sure that we use duplicate closes right.

(Besides which, hold voters shouldn't ever have the power to designate answers as right and wrong. That would undermine the voting system that is the bedrock of the site.)

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ "This is one of the (many) reasons why we are only supposed to mark question as duplicate when they are 100% the same." It happens all the time that a question isn't quite the same but the answers apply to both, and those questions are nearly always closed as duplicates. I'm not complaining that that shouldn't happen but it seems to me the community here has a slightly different view on duplicates than the site guideline you've cited here. \$\endgroup\$ – LegendaryDude Apr 21 '17 at 15:27
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @LegendaryDude Which is something that we shouldn't paper over with a feature that makes it more okay to do more often. Rather, we should have those inconsistencies (“are they inconsistent?”) nagging at us, to ensure we keep evaluating these cases well, possibly re-evaluate them (as the meta Q that prompted this feature request asks us to do), and generally keep us honest. If we have done duplicates a bit wrong in the past, those should come back to haunt us and help us correct course. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Apr 21 '17 at 15:30

You must log in to answer this question.

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