Why are "wrong" answers considered "not helpful"? (Yes, another discussion about "helpful versus not helpful")?

This is great that so many folks are focused on this issue... we're getting down to the nitty gritty in the system and that's excellent for week four! :-) In the example above your talking about a statistical outlier and the more you build a system for outliers the more complicated it gets. In most cases it's really obvious if a question is helpful or not, and in a case like this if you're not sure you can just not vote.

Now, helpful is but one vector we can judge a question by, you are correct. We could ask if it is good, correct or your favorite as well. Let's look at why the feature is there: to help us sort the answers and to remove really bad stuff.1."Good Answer" would be similar to "Helpful" in my mind because "good" would be defined as did it help answer the question.

So, "Is this answer good--as in helpful--to the person asking the question? " would be the way to say it in a full sentence. I wouldn't be opposed to saying "good answer" -- but not sure if that is very helpful.

2. "Correct/Incorrect" opens up a major can of worms because things are not usually correct or incorrect--they are varying degrees of correct. Refute fact is the way we deal with that anyway, 3.

Favorite means it's your favorite, and as such that's not really so important. Your personal favorite is not a piece of data we need--we need know if this answer should be a) lowered, b) deleted, etc.So, again, you don't need to ever use the "Helpful Answer" voting button. If you feel strongly that it's helpful or not then go ahead and vote.

If you're not sure, you can skip it or take your best guess. We don't need perfect voting in helpful answers--just more right than wrong. Over the coming weeks we're going to look at a sample of questions and see what the voting tells us.

Right now we don't have enough data. Best j.

I'm sure you're trying to work out the flaws (hence "beta") and you have some great ideas. The problem I see is... there are too many variables that can be worked out. There will be times when the system doesn't work.

I'm assuming, with the Beta Testing|beta testing, that it will be shown to all come out in the wash. The object is to get "good" answers. If people give answers with documented information, then they will tend to be the Best Answer.

If people give answers with no sources, then they might be "Helpful". Just plain wrong answers are "Refuted" and poor answers are "Bad". So... the range is: 1.

Best Answer 2. Helpful Answer 3. Not Helpful Answer 4.

Refute Of course, when opinion questions get thrown in, then all hell breaks loose.

I agree that there is a very broad stroke taken if the definitions are stuck to as described. The only problem I'd have with the newer idea of "smaller strokes" would be that then they would have to assume either that all but the lowest option would be helpful or that all other than the highest option would be unhelpful. My own idea of a solution to this is for the question asker be the only user who can rate answers on their questions.

This may seem a bit too strict; however, I've definitely been on the receiving end of a random "No" from someone of which I haven't a clue where the "No" came from (I looked back through my answers... None of them had a "No. " An added feature of being able to look at the helpful and non-helpful answers would be handy too, since the data is still there.

Take Yahoo! Answers|Yahoo Answers. They don't say "was this helpful", because they know that users will vote "digg-style" anyway, as they see fit.

But, to be ontopic, this would be my classification: 1. I agree with the opinion 2. I disagree with the opinion 3.

The answer solves the problem 4. The answer does not solve the problem.

I disagree. Whether or not the person answering is trying (and perhaps failing) to be helpful is not relevant. All that is important is if helpful information relevant to the question is supplied.

A wrong answer can be helpful! If a wrong answer is provided and if someone else properly refutes the wrong answer then this is very helpful information. I think a suitable definition of "helpful" would be whether or not the answer is worth reading.

Besides helpful and not helpful answers, there is a third type of answer; an answer which was removed by the administrators. Some of the answers removed by the administrators were helpful, worth reading, but were removed for unknown reasons.

I personally disagree that giving a well-thought out but wrong answer is still helpful. Helpful to me means they answered the person's question. If it's wrong or off topic, it doesn't answer the question and is unhelpful.

I've had several questions that were answered with well researched responses, but didn't actually answer what I asked. I did not get the information I asked for. That is not helpful.

If people would like to add additional information that may not be specifically what the person asked for but is related (and is in addition to the exact answer they were looking for), that is helpful and goes above and beyond (qualifying it for Best Answer). For me, a wrong answer is not helpful. I can appreciate effort and thought, but good intentions don't yield usefulness automatically.

I also think that having a few more options or a slightly more involved voting system could give more reliable/useful results. To me differentiating between "makes no attempt" or very little effort answers and honest answers with fair amounts of effort behind them is one goal (A). So "makes no attempt" is on one end of the effort scale.

And selecting popular answers (favorite/correct) versus unpopular answers is another goal (B). I'm not sure that combining these two uses into one up/down vote is unworkable. But even though there isn't an awful lot of data, I think that by examining many individual questions you can determine many cases where some people thought the button applied to only (A) and others thought it only meant (B) and others understood it to be a combination of (A) and (B).

Maybe, if it isn't attractive for Mahalo to invest the time in developing and testing a more elaborate voting system (which could be a pretty significant undertaking), they could add just some bit of text to clarify the usage of the button so that people would understand that it meant (A) or (A) + (B) or whatever. I think a little bit more language besides "helpful/unhelpful" would be useful and mainly the reason this is an issue I believe is that natural language is just imprecise. People have to interpret words they way they see fit because they often quite a bit of meaning is compressed into individual words.

Adding a few more words could make a big difference and prevent having populations of users with completely different voting systems in their heads. Or, if its really just going to mean "sort up" or "sort down" maybe use a word or phrase like that which is clearly general, or have no label at all and just arrows.

I understand the technical burden of adding a multi range of replies from: a) really helpful, to d) not helpful (or wrong/refuted) at all (and whatever shades in between). But I think some (of us/you) are missing the opportunity to communicate in the Comments Section their "grading" of the communication. If the Answers (plural) are good, bad, helpful (but wrong), helpful (but not best), then everyone viewing the Answers & Comments has the opportunity to say so AND WHY (it's good, bad, so-so etc.) in the Comment box.

After all, this is about communication, and no manner of "check boxes" is an adequate substitute for clarity and nuance. Check boxes and star rating "system" might not be as reliable as one thinks because the point of reference varies (or can be sabotaged.) Whereas, if someone calls an answer "bad" when there was obviously good intent (even if the answer is slightly wrong), that is more valuable than a 4 or 5-step rating scale. It's about the communication.

And people should be encouraged to be clear, specific, & concise as to what part of the answer was good, bad, so-so, unclear, wrong, biased, misleading, or great etc.My biggest issue w/ some folks is that they think they can Google|google or Wikipedia|wiki something and then believe that what they find tells the entire story, is correct, or worse-- makes their "answer" correct. (As if one could google their way to being as knowledgeable as a Doctor|doctor/surgeon, architect or successful Entrepreneur|entrepreneur, and provide a 500 word or less response that is without reproach. ) I also have issues w/ people encouraging/suggesting people to do illegal things or already proven (scientifically) bad courses of action.

I clicked on helpful to every one of these answers because they all were helpful to ME. The problem I see is that the questions that I have read range from the very profound to the very silly with a lot of mundane questions in between. Some of the answers have been fact (as I see it) and some of them have been opinion (as I see it).

When a question is rather technical in nature it is easier to assess the answer. When a question is far ranging it becomes much more difficult, not only to answer, but to judge whether or not the answer is helpful either to the questioner or to the viewer. So the subjectiveness of the answers is about as far ranging as the questions.

When I find myself agonizing as to whether an answer is helpful or unhelpful I usually leave it alone. Personally, I would rather an answer be rated as popular or unpopular, or else have two separate lines, one that rates the helpfulness and a second that rates the popularity of the answer.

You must not have read my answer carefully or checked my sources. I did figure out that you meant "Lucky Bamboo". My answer was not inaccurate, it covered the usual cause of Lucky Bamboo stalks turning yellow.It was not helpful in your case because, perhaps, something else was wrong with your plants.

But there are any number of reasons a plant can get ill, especially when it is kept under unnatural circumstances. It was irritating that you gave best answer to someone who more or less said it could be anything and gave no sources. Especially after I went to the trouble of researching your specific symptom instead of quoting general care advice.

All of which just goes to show you can't expect too much from how your answer will be judged even by experienced folks. I find though, that most of my "unhelpful" points come from when I give an answer to a question involving religion, social issues, or politics. Even when I provide rationality, facts, and/or sources the folks who disagree (that would usually be the rednecks clinging to their bibles, guns, gas guzzlers, and barbecues) mark me as unhelpful.

I take it in stride. Those questions are often the most fun to answer. And you have to answer for fun because you sure can't answer for money.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.