19

Even though you can always change your accepted answer at any time, most people read an "accepted answer" as a signal that you're satisfied with that answer and aren't really looking for anything else. Therefore, people are generally less likely to take the time to write an answer to a question that already has an accepted answer. By accepting an answer ...


9

This problem is as old as Stack Exchange, I guess. In the end the question author has sole authority to decide which answer to accept. We can not override their decision, except by removing the answer altogether. What you can do is: Post a comment on the question where you express your concerns about their choice of accepted answer. Hope they reconsider. ...


8

As far as I know, there are no specific rules on this, but it's generally seen as sensible to wait for 24 hours on any stack so that people from all time zones have an equal chance to chip in, and aren't discouraged from giving their perspective. That said, it really is a personal choice.


5

There's no hard-and-fast rule,1 but I've always found that 48 hours, at a minimum, is a good length of time to wait before accepting an answer. This is for two reasons: Politics.SE (like any *.SE) has users from all over the world, and, more specifically, from time zones all over the world. Waiting 48 hours before accepting an answer gives users from ...


4

I have a problem with this specific meta question because it seems to suggest that there are people who are not biased or viewpoints which are not biased. I don't think such people or viewpoints can exist for political questions. I think what you really mean are people who are asking rhetorical questions because they already know the answer. Those people ...


4

There's actually a gold badge for this: Populist, where your question gets way more upvotes than the accepted answer. You're not going to get away from it, sadly. Accepted answers are, by definition, solely within the purview of the OP, and indicate the approval of the OP as answering their question, biases and all. An accepted answer does not necessarily ...


4

I'd say there are a few options in this and similar scenarios: to keep with the idea of "keep it balanced", create your own answer combining what's said to show both sides. Personally I'd create it as a community wiki so as not to look like I'm trying to steal the rep from the others make a comment on each answer asking if either would consider editing to ...


2

Sometimes there is not a correct answer, or at minimum it isn't black and white. I'd agree that marking either answer as "accepted" puts a bias on the questioner and perhaps even the site. It's questions and answers like these that make me feel that all answers should contain references to studies or original sources pertaining to the question, such as the ...


2

The accepted answer problem is very old and hard to tackle even for sites where "bias" is not that strong such as in Politics.SE (e.g. StackOverflow). This meta question deals with why the accepted answer is on top by default, regardless of its quality. Cannot find one example now, but I saw an accepted answer with score -20 on SO simply because that answer ...


1

>1,000 words: (xkcd.com) An "Accept" does not deter new answers, contrary to what is believed. There was/is even a hat for it in Winter Bash (answering after an accepted answer, and your answer gets accepted). I think the help center sums it up nicely: Accepting an answer is not meant to be a definitive and final statement indicating that the question ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible