2
$\begingroup$

I like to answer questions in my areas of interest. Just this week I learned that the "unanswered" really means "no answer selected" not "no answers at all". I now go into the filters and have found lots of new and relevant stuff to contributed.

Questions:

  • Why is the default set to "no answers selected"?
  • If we wanted more answers to totally unanswered questions, why not change the search default?
$\endgroup$
6
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ We at stats.SE don't have control over how the SE software works. You could raise the issue on meta.SE, though. In the meantime, the search syntax supports filtering to different criteria. I believe you want answers:0. $\endgroup$
    – Sycorax Mod
    Jan 5 at 17:07
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ For this purpose I often use something like <specific terms> answers:0 closed:no duplicate:no. See stats.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5549/…. This Meta post is of interest $\endgroup$ Jan 5 at 17:26
  • $\begingroup$ I hate to ask this, but could you bump this question over to the appropriate matter forum? I’m probably asking it in the wrong spot again. $\endgroup$ Jan 6 at 1:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If you mean Meta, then I guess it would promptly be closed as dup. Doesn't my link in the other comment suffice? $\endgroup$ Jan 6 at 2:43
  • $\begingroup$ The answers are about how. I know how. I found out. The question isn’t about how. Question is twofold: why, and a suggestion of changing the default to get many more answers to unanswered questions. $\endgroup$ Jan 6 at 10:10
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The reason for this behavior may be the following: if no answer was accepted, this means that the OP did not feel his question was satisfactorily answered, no matter how many answers have been posted in the thread. As such, adding another answer may well give the OP what they were looking for. So "unanswered" seems to be taking the POV of the OP, not use "answer" in the SE meaning of a post in a thread. One can discuss which semantics of "answer" one wants, but either one is definitely defensible. (Also, this runs afoul of drive-by posters who don't accept answers, even ones that helped.) $\endgroup$ Jan 18 at 9:15

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .