Return to Answer

I agree that questions and answers should be judged by their individual merits. Should a user provide a large number of useful self-answered questions, we should really count ourselves lucky that someone is taking the time to provide this service. I, for one, would greatly prefer this over the usual lazy homework/textbook/assignment/text/exam/contest/&c. copypasta with accompanying lazy HINT answer. (I should note that as of now I don't feel many of our highest total-score question/self-answer pairs are particularly useful, but I also don't think that this is particular to self-answered questions.)

On the other hand, users who are providing double-plus-un-useful content should be made aware of this through downvotes and comments (and possibly closures/deletions). Of course, this vigilance of separating the wheat (useful) from the chaff (not useful) should apply to all posts, not just self-answered questions.

It should be remarked that users who consistently post poor questions or answers can hit pretty major speed bumps that will temporarily keep them from further posting. (Outright question and answer bans are still possible to achieve, though pretty difficult.) This requires the community to use their votes (and at time even sacrifice some reputation imaginary internet points).

As a word of caution, none of the above should be used to justify going through a particular user's questions/answers to downvote/flag/close/delete them. Such serial activity will not be kindly looked on.

I agree that questions and answers should be judged by their individual merits. Should a user provide a large number of useful self-answered questions, we should really count ourselves lucky that someone is taking the time to provide this service. I, for one, would greatly prefer this over the usual lazy homework/textbook/assignment/text/exam/contest/&c. copypasta with accompanying lazy HINT answer. (I should note that as of now I don't feel many of our highest total-score question/self-answer pairs are particularly useful, but I also don't think that this is particular to self-answered questions.)

On the other hand, users who are providing double-plus-un-useful content should be made aware of this through downvotes and comments (and possibly closures/deletions). Of course, this vigilance of separating the wheat (useful) from the chaff (not useful) should apply to all posts, not just self-answered questions.

It should be remarked that users who consistently post poor questions or answers can hit pretty major speed bumps that will temporarily keep them from further posting. (Outright question and answer bans are still possible to achieve, though pretty difficult.) This requires the community to use their votes (and at time even sacrifice some reputation imaginary internet points).

As a word of caution, none of the above should be used to justify going through a particular user's questions/answers to downvote/flag/close/delete them. Such serial activity will not be kindly looked on.

I agree that questions and answers should be judged by their individual merits. Should a user provide a large number of useful self-answered questions, we should really count ourselves lucky that someone is taking the time to provide this service. I, for one, would greatly prefer this over the usual lazy homework/textbook/assignment/text/exam/contest/&c. copypasta. (I should note that as of now I don't feel many of our highest total-score question/self-answer pairs are particularly useful, but I also don't think that this is particular to self-answered questions.)

On the other hand, users who are providing double-plus-un-useful content should be made aware of this through downvotes and comments (and possibly closures/deletions). Of course, this vigilance of separating the wheat (useful) from the chaff (not useful) should apply to all posts, not just self-answered questions.

It should be remarked that users who consistently post poor questions or answers can hit pretty major speed bumps that will temporarily keep them from further posting. (Outright question and answer bans are still possible to achieve, though pretty difficult.) This requires the community to use their votes (and at time even sacrifice some reputation imaginary internet points).

As a word of caution, none of the above should be used to justify going through a particular user's questions/answers to downvote/flag/close/delete them. Such serial activity will not be kindly looked on.

I agree that questions and answers should be judged by their individual merits. Should a user provide a large number of useful self-answered questions, we should really count ourselves lucky that someone is taking the time to provide this service. I, for one, would greatly prefer this over the usual lazy homework/textbook/assignment/text/exam/contest/&c. copypasta with accompanying lazy HINT answer. (I should note that as of now I don't feel many of our highest total-score question/self-answer pairs are particularly useful, but I also don't think that this is particular to self-answered questions.)

On the other hand, users who are providing double-plus-un-useful content should be made aware of this through downvotes and comments (and possibly closures/deletions). Of course, this vigilance of separating the wheat (useful) from the chaff (not useful) should apply to all posts, not just self-answered questions.

It should be remarked that users who consistently post poor questions or answers can hit pretty major speed bumps that will temporarily keep them from further posting. (Outright question and answer bans are still possible to achieve, though pretty difficult.) This requires the community to use their votes (and at time even sacrifice some reputation imaginary internet points).

As a word of caution, none of the above should be used to justify going through a particular user's questions/answers to downvote/flag/close/delete them. Such serial activity will not be kindly looked on.

I agree that questions and answers should be judged by their individual merits. Should a user provide a large number of useful self-answered questions, we should really count ourselves lucky that someone is taking the time to provide this service. I, for one, would greatly prefer this over the usual lazy homework/textbook/assignment/text/exam/contest/&c. copypasta. (I should note that as of now I don't feel many of our highest total-score question/self-answer pairs are particularly useful, but I don't think that their being self-answered questions has much to do with it.)

On the other hand, users who are providing double-plus-un-useful content should be made aware of this through downvotes and comments (and possibly closures/deletions). Of course, this vigilance of separating the wheat (useful) from the chaff (not useful) should apply to all posts, not just self-answered questions.

It should be remarked that users who consistently post poor questions or answers can hit pretty major speed bumps that will temporarily keep them from further posting. (Outright question and answer bans are still possible to achieve, though pretty difficult.) This requires the community to use their votes (and at time even sacrifice some reputation imaginary internet points).

As a word of caution, none of the above should be used to justify going through a particular user's questions/answers to downvote/flag/close/delete them. Such serial activity will not be kindly looked on.

I agree that questions and answers should be judged by their individual merits. Should a user provide a large number of useful self-answered questions, we should really count ourselves lucky that someone is taking the time to provide this service. I, for one, would greatly prefer this over the usual lazy homework/textbook/assignment/text/exam/contest/&c. copypasta. (I should note that as of now I don't feel many of our highest total-score question/self-answer pairs are particularly useful, but I also don't think that this is particular to self-answered questions.)

On the other hand, users who are providing double-plus-un-useful content should be made aware of this through downvotes and comments (and possibly closures/deletions). Of course, this vigilance of separating the wheat (useful) from the chaff (not useful) should apply to all posts, not just self-answered questions.

It should be remarked that users who consistently post poor questions or answers can hit pretty major speed bumps that will temporarily keep them from further posting. (Outright question and answer bans are still possible to achieve, though pretty difficult.) This requires the community to use their votes (and at time even sacrifice some reputation imaginary internet points).

As a word of caution, none of the above should be used to justify going through a particular user's questions/answers to downvote/flag/close/delete them. Such serial activity will not be kindly looked on.