15
\$\begingroup\$

Should the time in which an answer cannot be accepted be raised?

On Stack Overflow there is a limit of 15 minutes before you can accept an answer, such that other answerers have a chance of providing an answer as well and have a higher chance that their answer may get accepted.

Given it can take as low as 2 minutes to read the question and write an answer on SO, 15 minutes seems a fair enough timespan.

However, here on CR, it can easily take at least 15-30 minutes to read the question and answer it, should the time in which the answer cannot be accepted be raised to something appropriate as well?

Please discuss.

I am inclined to say that it should be raised to at least 2 hours in order to give others the capability of reviewing the code as well.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ neat observation. I agree with this.... but have some concerns too.... \$\endgroup\$ – rolfl Mar 24 '14 at 19:41
13
\$\begingroup\$

NO - the limit should not be increased.

As it is, many answered questions have no accepted answers.

By making a question asker have to check-back again to accept an answer is likely to lead to even fewer questions with accepted answers.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 7
    \$\begingroup\$ Unfortunately, I have to agree with this. While I have suffered from the problem of writing a lengthy review, and having the someone else post an answer and have it immediately accepted. I think rolfl is right, that this change in limit may end up with less accepted answers. \$\endgroup\$ – BenVlodgi Mar 24 '14 at 20:02
6
\$\begingroup\$

There's little benefit to increasing the time limit:

  • If you want to, you can still post a new answer even to an already-accepted question
  • The OP's inbox is notified of your new answer
  • Other users can upvote your new answer
  • The OP can accept your new answer (unaccepting the previous answer if yours is better)
\$\endgroup\$

You must log in to answer this question.

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