EDIT - seems like this change is a bit harder than I initially thought. I'll still collect ideas and we might look to get this changed in the future, but it's not a high priority.

This is now at +7/0 and seems to be a pretty solid consensus. I would like to finalize the proposal before getting in touch to get something done about it. The proposal is as follows:

TL;DR - Authoritative reference required, Canonical answer required, Current answers are outdated, and Improve details do not offer anything to our side. Draw attention and Reward existing answer are the only two we need on our site. Should we go ahead with this proposal?

We current have six bounty reasons:

  • Authoritative reference required - answers on this site are generally purely the product of someone's own work and then them golfing it down, possibly with the help of others. A source or credible factual backing behind an answer isn't really something that applies to this site, and in the very very rare situation where this might be a thing, users can use the Draw Attention bounty. Proposal: remove this
  • Canonical answer required - any and all answers on this site need to be fully valid as per the challenge, and general usage and accessibility isn't something we worry about here (and isn't something that's necessarily that compatible with code golf either...). Proposal: remove this
  • Current answers are outdated - that's not really a thing here; again, we don't concern ourselves with usability anyway, and we encourage answers in languages across a variety of periods of time. Should this somehow come up, users can use the Draw Attention bounty. Proposal: remove this
  • Improve details - again, answers need to be fully valid as a necessary and sufficient condition, so this doesn't apply here. Details and explanations are specific to answers anyway, and if you want an explanation for an answer, you can ask nicely in a comment, and maybe offer to give a Reward Existing Answer bounty if they fulfill your request. This is just not really applicable to a non-Q&A site like CGCC. Proposal: remove this

As such, we would only keep the remaining two:

  • Draw attention - pretty self-explanatory. This bounty can be used for pretty much any of the extremely rare scenarios where one of the above might apply for once, and for the general case that you want more attention on a forgotten or underappreciated challenge.
  • Reward existing answer - pretty self-explanatory. This bounty is probably applicable to nearly all of the cases where we use bounties on this site, especially since deadline-less bounties are also awarded under this category.

Please vote on this post to indicate if you agree or not, and leave a comment or an answer if you propose a change to it, such as keeping one of the four reasons, or renaming one instead of deleting it to add a new bounty reason.

If you are proposing a change, please consider carefully what use cases it would have and whether or not we would need it for a situation that can't be covered by Draw attention or Reward existing answer.

  • \$\begingroup\$ Is asking to reword bounty reasons on the table? \$\endgroup\$
    – xnor
    Commented Apr 19, 2021 at 23:51
  • \$\begingroup\$ @xnor It was on the original proposal, so I believe it should be possible. \$\endgroup\$
    – hyper-neutrino Mod
    Commented Apr 19, 2021 at 23:54
  • \$\begingroup\$ I am marking this as status-deferred because this requires extensive work from the CMs and doesn't seem to be of particular importance. \$\endgroup\$
    – hyper-neutrino Mod
    Commented Jun 9, 2021 at 13:59

1 Answer 1


Improve Details should be kept

There are some situations, like tips questions, where Improve Details might actually be useful. I think keeping one of the "normal" bounty reasons for things like this has very little cost, and can be useful.

  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I think it also works for challenges like "extend this AEOIS sequence" or "find the biggest ___ prime", etc. But I'm not sure it would function much differently from the "draw attention" reason (though I think that isn't specific to this site, so perhaps we shouldn't care about that). \$\endgroup\$ Commented Apr 21, 2021 at 18:52
  • \$\begingroup\$ @FryAmTheEggman I suppose "Improve Details" is a bit more specific, and it doesn't come at much cost \$\endgroup\$ Commented Apr 21, 2021 at 18:59

You must log in to answer this question.

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