How would it be if the first and second user who answers a question would gain reputation for being one of the first volunteers?

Why implement this feature?

It can be a reward for loyal people,for those who answer a lot especially.For a reason which I will present below,it can be quite pleasant to see that spending so much time on the site is finally appreciated.This can also be a feature for new,decent users who wish to gain points.It would be fun to race against others,too.I will explain some more.

Since EE.SE's purpose is to be a good archive of questions and answers,I have figured out that certain restriction must be part of my request.Otherwise,the message would be that the quality of the post doesn't matter,only your speed does.I propose two ways:

1st way

In order to receive the rewards,the question should have at least 3 upvotes and the answer should have at least 2 upvotes.Only after these conditions are met will the users receive their rep:+6 for the first and +3 for the second.

By arranging it so users will still have to their best.A rather poor question will probably not have more than 1-2 answers,but those with votes are more likely to have more.

2nd way

The question should have at least 5 upvotes and the answer should have at least 3 upvotes.The rewarded points are the same.

I'd go for more rewarded reputation,but I want to hear some opinions instead.In the very unlikely case that the users answer simultaneously,the will get +4,regardless of the fact that they are the first or the second.The qualitative posters,active people will have another advantage.

  • 9
    \$\begingroup\$ I don't think encouraging "speed" is ever a good thing as you get a lot of people putting in a quick answer, and then maybe editing it to be better. Second, that's less than an upvote in points - what's the benefit? \$\endgroup\$
    – W5VO
    Jan 2, 2017 at 19:52

2 Answers 2


If anything, we have the reverse problem. Twice in just the last few days, I saw a question with only one mediocre answer, wrote a good answer, and discovered that the OP had accepted the mediocre answer while I was writing mine. In both cases, that was less than one hour after the question was asked.

We want quality, not speed.

Quality comes in part from having lots of competing answers. Your system will discourange answers after the second, because it will be more fuitful to spend time on questions that only have 0 or 1 answer. You may think of your system as encouraging fast answers, but it likeways discourages additional answers.

Who answers first also has a lot to do with what time it was around the world when the question was posted, or when someone happened to have a break and checked the site. Neither of those are related to quality, and often there is little that answerers realistically (assuming they have jobs) can do about it.

If you want to incentivize better answers, don't allow OPs to accept one until either 24 hours have passed or there are at least 3 answers.

  • \$\begingroup\$ I agree that the accept system doesn't really favour quality.Still,the system allows you to unaccept answers and change your mind.Not sure putting cuffs to their hands for 24 hours would change something.Once they have been released,their eyes are still on the low quality.Maybe an automatic message would help like:"You have received another answer.Please consider accepting it if that's what works better for you" \$\endgroup\$ Jan 3, 2017 at 20:06

Speed is not what I would like to see in answers.

Way too many people already jump on new questions with badly worded, half explained answers that contain the truthful core of an answer, but none of the why or how. Maybe because they don't feel like the why or how and feel an answer is better than none, but at least some very clearly also for the quick up-vote and the hasty-accepter. Throwing more points that way will do nothing for quality.

This hasty answering then drives me away from such questions, because I do put my hour, two hours, some in the past even 5+ hours of explaining, maths and drawings in and I don't want to be the 12th, answering after everyone following the question has already picked two of:

"Just remove the second transistor, oh hey, I met minimum char count, lol.".

After putting aside dozens of other questions to focus on this one I really like, or worse - which happens to me by accident as well - find that I spent a lot of time doing it right that I should have done billable work, to then see the answer disappear in the drags, because dozens of people at the same time posted the one-liners that get followed by 18 comments for clarification and mine got lost in the storm.

  • \$\begingroup\$ I deleted, because I thought you meant top 2 answers, then saw the point I saw before about the simultaneously and undeleted, because that obviously is about time. (Note to Mods as well) I'd not agree with top-2-either but for less angry reasons. \$\endgroup\$
    – Asmyldof
    Jan 2, 2017 at 19:45
  • \$\begingroup\$ They can't leave poor answers because they won't get the rep at all,because they wouldn't get the necessary upvotes. \$\endgroup\$ Jan 2, 2017 at 19:59
  • \$\begingroup\$ Also,I don't understand why the storm would pop.After the first two answers are posted,the rep giveaway will be over.Besides,even if those who came first don't get the reputation,it's over anyway.Nobody would race against the clock anyway.Don't think your answer would get lost if it's the third. \$\endgroup\$ Jan 2, 2017 at 20:11
  • \$\begingroup\$ @DanielTork Look at my profile. There was a spurt in rep, then nothing, then another spurt in rep followed by a very flat slope. The nothing was when what I describe happening several times a week drove me away. The low slope is when it happened again, but I had discovered chat to vent my annoyances. I know whereof I speak. \$\endgroup\$
    – Asmyldof
    Jan 2, 2017 at 20:23
  • \$\begingroup\$ @DanielTork, you over-estimate the correlation between answer quality and up-votes. (or between poor quality and down-votes). As it is there is a strong tendency for the first answer to get unjustified up votes. Your proposal would just make it worse. \$\endgroup\$
    – The Photon
    Jan 30, 2017 at 2:10

You must log in to answer this question.

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