On Code Review, it makes little difference. Code Review isn't riddled with redundant answers. Most researchers are well-prepared to read lengthy and multiple answers. The re-organization of the accepted answer's page location is rather irrelevant here.
When I am researching something on CR, I'm going to read the whole page. I'd be a fool to just read ...
There's nothing wrong with self-answering a question. There isn't even anything wrong with accepting your own answer if you review your own code and provide new insight that others haven't.
The problem is when your selfie is not actually a review. If you just implemented the advices given in one or more other answers, that's not a review. As such, it's not ...
Realistically, as long, or short, as you want
I have seen:
Users accepting an answer as soon as it's gone up.
Users never accepting an answer.
Users accepting an answer, and then never visiting the site again.
Users accepting an answer, and then accepting a new answer.
Users accepting an answer, and then accepting a different, already existing, answer.
Don't get me wrong, there is nothing bad with self-answering a question. There isn't even anything wrong with accepting your own answer if you review your own code with distinct points not stated in other answers. The problem comes in when you only implement the advice given to you by other answers into your own answer and choose to accept that instead.
I don't think we have the same issue as Stack Overflow.
My anecdotal evidence, which is quite biased as I stay within the python, is it can be good and I don't think we have the problem SO has. Having the accept pin answers has allowed late answers to hot questions be upvoted far more than they otherwise would.
Now admittedly my evidence is biased as ...
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.
Who reviews the reviewers?
You have some options for this:
Add a comment (if you have the reputation)
Downvote (if you have the reputation), and if you downvote it is recommended that you also add a comment.
You did the right choice by adding a comment.
Given the number of questions and answers on this site, I don't expect everyone to actually ...
One idea is to do something like allowing multiple accepted answers.
The problem with this is that the single-answer acceptance system is consistent throughout all SE sites. Despite this one site's intentions, it cannot be implemented just for us. I agree that the accepted answer system has its flaws, but I don't see any changing in it any time soon. ...
I think it's fine. Answers benefit the original asker, of course, but far more people read the answer than that. For that reason, leaving which answer is on top up to the community, rather than a single person seems to be more in keeping with the nature of Code Review and arguably more useful.
If you're curious, as I was, about what such questions ...
The asker should mark as accepted the answer which they found most constructive.
It's not an objective thing (on any of the Stack Exchange sites even). It is entirely the opinion of the asker. It's a super upvote, if you will.
In this scenario I think that specific user actually misunderstood site policies, See the screenshot below.
If it really is a misunderstanding as he claims we should forgive him, If he follow site policies from now on, and do not repeat the same mistake again he was probably saying the truth.
I suggested the user to participate in the chat as well.
If I ...
In addition to @Simon's suggestions (commenting and downvoting), you have two more options:
Edit the answer to fix a bug (if you are certain that a small change will take care of the problem)
Post a rebuttal as a competing answer. In that case, it would probably pay off to advertise your new answer in chat, since the original broken answer already has so ...
Upvote every answer that you find helpful. Other users will vote on the answers as well. Choosing to accept an answer is completely at your discretion.
Merging answers is not appropriate, as other users may want to vote on each answer in a different way than you.
Answers on Code Review are meant to be “these are issues I found in your code and this is how I would fix them”, not “this is how I would solve this task”.
What this means is that you can't look at an answer by itself, you have to consider it together with the question. And if there is some issue in the code in the question that an answer missed, it doesn't ...
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)
Here are two related Meta links:
How does accepting an answer work?
Which answer should I choose?
The bottom line is that you should accept the answer that you found to be the most helpful to you, personally.
Which answer do I accept if I have multiple correct answers?
(Specifically, this answer to the above question.)
I would say, the ...
In recent discussions about Low Quality answers in the Low Quality Queue it was said that
a code dump is not a review, and therefore not an acceptable answer.
By Mat's Mug
Meaning that the answer should still be a review of the code originally posted code, if it is not a review then it is not a good answer.
If the selfie is a code dump, it is not a ...
If you look into your reputation history, you will see that you were actually awared some “+2”s:
+2 on 2013-11-21 10:41 accept Polynomial Equation solver
+2 on 2013-11-18 09:44 accept Caesar Cipher
-2 on 2013-11-18 09:44 unaccept Caesar Cipher
+2 on 2013-11-13 22:50 accept Caesar Cipher
It can take a while for the reward to appear.
The feature that I find most missing here is inline comments (like Cruicible). Perphaps just being able to place dots (or other tags) inline w/ id that could be used to focus on "answer" below would be sufficient.
Otherwise it can be hard to follow discussion of a code section that is not very short.