G'day cormanaz,

There are very few nodes that don't receive a reply and, I suspect, the majority of those don't need one: accidental duplicates, intentional spam, and the like. These may, of course, be in need of consideration. I don't have access to the numbers, but I'd guess the number of genuine posts that go unanswered is very small.

Many posts have replies that don't address the question but rather something that needs fixing: markup problems, missing content, and so on. Once fixed, these may be questions you can answer but they won't be identified by the suggested filter.

Many replies don't address the entirety of the question: perhaps you can fill in the missing parts. In other cases, you may have additional information, a better answer, a caveat you'd like to share, a correction to a response, and so on. Again, the filter won't highlight any of these posts.

I don't think the filter you suggest would be something I'd personally use; however, I acknowledge that others may find it useful. Having said that, why limit it to SoPW posts with zero replies. Filtering nodes by other criteria is already a function of Super Search: perhaps just adding a "with <= N replies" option would do what you want (while providing the additional, existing options of searching by sections, dates, and so on).

This is correct; answerable questions tend to get answers. Low quality questions tend to still get answers, but often of lesser significance to the OP's needs. And if we could guess better the significance would improve, but that's the problem -- sometimes we cannot guess our way through poorly specified questions.

Those that get no answer at all are usually of such irrelevance, or so extremely specific that they never could or should. I get the sense that unanswered but answerable questions are so rare that it wouldn't be worth much effort tracking them down, especially after enough time has passed that nobody's looking at them anymore.

We don't have a "mark this question as answered" feature, so it is impossible to be sure that a thread with answers actually hit the mark unless the OP let's us know, which is usually not the case and not generally encouraged.




Dave

We don't have a "mark this question as answered" feature

I have a proposal to address this.

I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies.

There are very few nodes that don't receive a reply

I think there is a difference between: 'has replies' and 'answered'.

---

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". The enemy of (IT) success is complexity.

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

I agree.

And that's why I use RAT. The "topology" of the response tree plus the involved actors reveal a lot before clicking.

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :)
Je suis Charlie!}

update

see Re^4: Unanswered Nodes (CSS Solution) for a RAT solution

I don't see a way to filter on "no replies" or "replies == 0".

I don't see a way to filter on "no replies" or "replies == 0".

Hi,

You can use your eyes to filter , root nodes (questions) with no replies are followed by (U) or (FA) or (A)

If there are are replies there are numbers in ()

See Recently Active Threads Faqlet for more

Also, Seekers of Perl Wisdom uses the words No replies

I agree, it would be nice to have a Newest Unanswered Question (or NUQ) similar to Newest Nodes

It should be easy to to do with javascript, like Free nodelet hack: Auto-Fold threads in RAT for special browsers

There is no filter, but you see which threads have replies.

Contrary to Seekers of Perl Wisdom

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :)
Je suis Charlie!}

Seconded++