The dupe- message is confusing, please change it

Question

If a question:

• is an exact duplicate of an existing question, meaning:
• is also undoubtedly based on the same issue or reason
• is also meant in the same way

...it seems pretty clear that the question should be marked as a dupe. Additional (alternative) answers can and should be posted on the original question. If OP nevertheless does not like the existing answer(s), or would prefer another solution, we have several tools to draw attention to the question. The bounty system is the most important one no doubt, but OP can also comment on his own question, dupe or not, and there are more ways.

This is the only line of thinking of a dupe that actually makes sense, one would say.

Not if we look at the message someone gets in case a question is marked as a dupe, as I learned from the discussion on a recent question.

"if the answers on the possible duplicate do not answer your question then you should edit your question to explain why."

So: if the question is an exact an undoubted dupe, but OP does not like existing answer(s) or suggested solution(s), it suddenly isn't a dupe anymore?

If that would be the rule, we could ask the very same question over and over again until we get the answer we like, dupe or not.

---

Exceptions

Reality is always more complicated than theory and rules can describe. You can always discuss how strict certain rules should be applied and when to (possibly) allow exceptions.
If the rules are unclear to begin with however, we can have discussion on each and every dupe. It is for a reason that there are so many different interpretations on what is a dupe, and so many "accidents" in review happen on dupes.

The text of the message isn't helping much then, on the contrary, it gives the impression it is OK to deliberately post or keep a dupe, as long as you don't like existing answers.

So in short

I am not suggesting "iron" practice. It should be clear however why exceptions should be practised, and exceptions to what rule. The current message however suggests that the rule is that the answer defines the question, which makes no sense. Not in real live, not on AU.

So:

Please change the text of the dupe- message into something like:

"if the the possible duplicate is different from your question, please explain why your question is different."

Answer 1

TL;DR: nope, the duplicate message is alright. Users can ask duplicate questions under reasonable circumstances and having sufficient argument to do so

In this answer:

1. Validation for asking new question
2. Prior Questions on SE Meta
3. Duplicate message
4. The linked question and what is wrong with flagging it as duplicate

1. Validation for asking new question:

if the question is an exact an undoubted dupe, but OP does not like existing answer(s), it suddenly isn't a dupe anymore?

While it may be a duplicate, even word for word, users still have right to ask a different question if the answers under original question do not satisfy OP's specific case or the question is outdated. Especially in the last case, new users with only 1 reputation, cannot add bounty to existing question to draw attention , and cannot comment. The consequence of brutally closing all questions as duplicates leads to more users being pissed and having no answer. As Jeff Atwood put it:

Having one "perfect" form of a question that contains every possible answer to every slight variation of that question is a myth at best and actively harmful at worst.

Even the duplicate message suggests that asking a different question is OK

Liking the answer has nothing to do here, and nobody explicitly comes and says "I don't like it, make me something else". People ask those questions because answers on dupe do not work for them. This is legitimate reason to keep question open

---

2. Prior Questions on SE Meta

Refer to Someone flagged my question as already answered, but it's not . It is a normal and accepted practice to have a duplicate question, which specifically says suggested duplicate did not work for them. Even if confirmed by OP, the OP still has right to request their question being left open because answers on other answers did not work or are not satisfactory for them.

Refer to How to remove duplicate mark from my question?. The answer states:

If your question has been closed as a duplicate, but the answers to the other question don't solve your problem, edit your question to explain exactly why. Be sure to actually try to use the information in the other answers. Don't just write "That obviously is different"; take some time and try to understand why expert users decided to help you by pointing you to an existing post.

Note that even on our own site, our own moderator has explicitly stated that it is alright to edit the question and explain why the question is not a duplicate

The documentation itself states:

duplicate - the fundamental goal of closing duplicate questions is to help people find the right answer by getting all of those answers in one place

"Right answer" is subjective in some cases, and depending on OP's circumstances the "right answer" may not be in the duplicate. ( Mechanic: "Hey, Mr. Customer, I had another person have this car issue" , Customer:"Yeah, but those guys had one brand of car, I have different one, the parts are in different places" )

---

3. Duplicate message

Prior to 2015 , it appears the duplicate message used to have such clause:

Compare:

So while I might agree with you that the message may need to be edited to include that clause again, I strongly disagree that "question defines the duplicate, not the answers". What's the worth of a question, if the answers there don't work ?

---

4. The linked question and what is wrong with flagging it as duplicate

Referring back to the specific question , OP appropriately responded in the comments:

I agree our questions are the same but the answer on that question does not answer my question. It only offers an unnecessary alternative

And this:

@JacobVlijm I didn't take anything personal. When you flagged it as a possible duplicate askubuntu sent me a notification saying if the answers on the possible duplicate didn't answer my question (they don't) then I should edit my question to explain why.

As per two StackOverflow meta posts, his action is legitimate and his question deserves to be standalone post.

Also, consider both questions: Panda asked How to interact with window behind gnome-terminal on shortcut key press? , while CaldwellYSR I would love to be able to click through the terminal and interact with the browser directly ( they did not ask for shortcut , so it's not exact duplicate in the first place ! )

OP explicitly mentioned that in the comments as well:

It did answer your question, since it is exactly the same question. You even mentioned: "this is a much better answer than the one in the duplicate question". The fact that you don' t like the answer doesn't change that . . .

@JacobVlijm It doesn't... it offers an alternative to alt+tab. alt+tab has nothing to do with the question since the question about about keeping the terminal on top of what you're interacting with. That answer does exactly the opposite. . .

6 down vote To expand further on what Oli said in the comments, I would argue that duplicates should only be used when both:

To quote thomasrutter:

• Any answer to question "A" would also be a valid answer to question "B"; AND
• Any answer to question "B" would also be a valid answer to question "A". If either of the above two conditions aren't met it's not a duplicate question.

As you can see, suggested duplicate asked for keyboard shortcut AND both mouse and keyboard interaction, while the original question asks for direct interaction AND mouse action on lower window while keyboard interacts with top window. Answers to either question are not equally applicable

As Jeff Atwood stated in his blog:

There are similar questions, yes, and so-called "exact" duplicates do happen, but they are kind of rare in my experience. It's far more common to have many subtle variations of a question. I think that's OK, because that's how the world works. Trying to shoehorn a bunch of semi-related things into one arbitrary container in service of some Highlander-ish "there can be only one" rule is ultimately harmful.