Should a question not have at least as many upvotes as answers?

Question

The hover-over message of the upvote button on a question is:

This question shows research effort; it is useful and clear.

For me that is sort of the same as saying this question can be answered.

Based solely on this sentence, I am often surprised to see questions without upvotes but with answers. In and of itself I know that answering a question and thinking it is interesting is not the same thing, but answering it sort of saying this is worth answering and thus it is sufficiently clear to be answered (thus deserving an upvote).

Should we upvote every question we answer? Should this maybe even be automatic? I am not sure, but sometimes I feel it is a bit of an oxymoron to not upvote the question whilst still answering it. Is an upvote on a question actually saying this question should be answered?

Answer 1

Saying "It can or should be answered" is not the same thing as saying "Good question".

How do I optimize my disk performance?

vs

How do I install and use flashcache/bcache to cache HDD to SSD?

I might answer the first, but I would and did upvote the second.

An additional note after some discussion in comments is that some voters in an attempt to "keep it fair" don't vote on anything they answer.

Answer 2

Yes/No/Maybe, its up to you, are all answers to your question.

This is personal and case dependent. In my view everything I edit is perfect (up to my low standards of just good enough most of the time, but does it's job well), so I give it up-votes after editing and move along. If I see something nice I up-vote and move along. Do we really need rules for up-voting or down-voting anything?

You don't need a up-vote rule, do it as your conscience tells you. You don't need a down-vote rule, do as your conscience tells you.

Votes are great but you need to understand that each case will be different and each user will vote according to what they believe a good post is. There are some quality standards that should apply but in the end its up to what you do, no rule can define that.

Answer 3

A question doesn't have to be good, or even particularly clear, to have good answers. However, when a question has good answers, that suggests there may be something good about the question.

Furthermore, if a question is not clear or lacks detail, but you are able to answer it, then often (not always) one or both of the following apply:

• You requested clarification, or more information, from the OP and it was provided.
• You were able to edit the question for clarity (or maybe all that was needed was to fix some formatting).

Then the answer is likely good enough to merit an upvote, even if it wasn't when it was first posted.

For these reasons, it makes sense that you would upvote many or most questions that you answer. You should still be willing not to do so, of course. You should even be willing to downvote a question that you answer, but (except on meta, where votes have a broader range of meanings) that's a somewhat unusual situation.

As others have said, being able to answer a question doesn't mean the question deserves an upvote. So the system should definitely not automatically cause you to upvote. Furthermore, often a bad question receives multiple answers because what it is asking is unclear, or because previous answers didn't get it right because there wasn't enough information. So under some circumstances, automatic (or unthinking) upvoting of questions you answer can actually incentivize bad questions.

Finally, the most common reason for me not to upvote a question that I've answered--or not to upvote it immediately--is that I've already used all my votes for the day, and thus cannot do so. A related limitation applies to new users, who cannot cast votes at all, but can post answers. I thought the first question I ever answered deserved an upvote, but I was not able to cast one until I had gained the necessary reputation.

Answer 4

Every vote on posts has to be cast taking into the merit of the particular post. If the post is good, clear and useful, I'd upvote it. If it is useful, I would edit the post to make it good and useful, especially in the case of answers, and then possibly vote on it. If the post is not useful in the first place, I don't generally spend my time on it and move on to the next best thing.

Now, coming to your discussion, whether or not the question is answerable is an entirely different issue. If it is not answerable, I would just vote to close it as not a real question. It if is indeed answerable, I would try to improve it. Only if the post is worthy of an upvote would I spend my vote on it.

Answering a question doesn't and shouldn't warrant an upvote on the question. Please don't take that bit of freedom from me. For that sake, I am answering your question but wouldn't upvote it because, well, it doesn't deserve one.

But, putting in perspective, these are my opinion and I am in no way imposing them on you. If you think answering a question equals an upvote on it, go ahead. Just don't impose your opinion on me.

Answer 5

In the system as it stands, for a question to be upvoted, it should have all these three characteristics:

1. Shows effort
2. is useful
3. is clear

I personally (don't shoot me) like the concise three characteristics of a good question. But showing effort is a relative thing and is judged differently by different voters. I feel the criteria are really usefulness and clarity. If it has either of them, it deserves an upvote.

• The upvote for clarity is to reward the OP,
• the upvote for usefulness is to build the community's knowledge base.