Case Scenario

Let's say I ask a query:

How to do x?

The answer says:

x cannot be done due to some y restrictions.

In this case should I accept it even though my problem hasn't been solved? Wouldn't it mislead others if they happen to stumble upon the question?

It can be misleading in the following case:

A user sees the question (from among a list of questions) and thinks, "Hey, this question has an accepted answer, so there is a solution", and 2 seconds later finds out that it can't be achieved.

The keyword here is "has a solution"...

| |
  • 39
    It may not be the answer the reader is hoping for, but it does help them with their problem; they now know their current approach will not work. – Jeffrey Bosboom Dec 16 '15 at 6:54
  • I edited your title to clarify that you're (seemingly) satisfied with the answer, it just isn't what you were hoping. (Newbies often ask if they should accept answers that "don't solve their problem" because the answers aren't good; the answer to that question is "no, wait for a better answer".) – Jeffrey Bosboom Dec 16 '15 at 6:56
  • 1
    If this happens, there is a good chance that you've asked an XY question. – Roland Dec 16 '15 at 10:26
  • "accepted" means "this one helped me solve my problem". It has a secondary effect of suggesting that your question has been dealt with. One way or another. – Sobrique Dec 16 '15 at 18:35
  • 8
    Yes. No is also an answer, and if future seekers can find this answer in two 'extra' seconds, they are still helped very quickly. It's better than when they don't look at the question at all, because they think it has no (accepted) answer. – GolezTrol Dec 16 '15 at 21:15

Should I accept an answer even if the issue hasn't been solved?

It really depends on the content of the answer.

If the post explains why it cannot be done, and gives a good reference for that or suggests an alternative, then it's an answer, a valid one. However, if the post only mentions that it cannot be done without trying to give a brief minimal explanation, then maybe you should wait for another post that would be more descriptive.


Well, if the users is trying to find a solution for "How can I do X", and the answer is that it cannot be done, then he got the answer, it's a valid answer since it addresses the question.

| |
  • 4
    @pnuts it takes a brave person to confidently state "it can't be done" in this community. I think the reason we don't see more of this type of answer is the niggling feeling a lot of us get that maybe someone else has figured this out, even though I don't think it can be done. – CactusCake Dec 18 '15 at 19:44
  • @JoeMalpass: Indeed. Or often a question is somewhat vague or ambiguous (e.g., if it provides an example of the desired behavior, but without a detailed specification), with different answerers interpreting it differently and therefore reaching different conclusions about whether it's possible. – ruakh Dec 19 '15 at 1:47

Yes. You should accept an answer whenever one of the answers is sufficient that you are no longer looking for a better answer to the question. If the answer literally proves the problem can't be solved, then there is no significantly better answer to give.

As a practical consequence, accepting an answer moves the question out of “unanswered” lists, and (whether for that reason or due to the simple presence of the checkmark), in my experience, can reduce the tendency for people to give half-baked answers much later.

| |
  • Yes, the Answer and the Solution are two different things entirely. The question was Answered – aremvee Dec 19 '15 at 0:08

In fact if you can get to a no quickly on an idea, that's almost as good as getting to a yes. So if the answer is good enough to explain why it's not possible, so it's worth accepting. Because it will be gain of time and the reader can start looking for new approaches or solutions. Such answers can reveal a misunderstanding of concept and help the reader to think differently. In addition when you accept the answer, this means it's closed and the reader have no need to start an other duplicated thread treating the same problem.

| |

If the answer proves that the issue can't be solved ever that should be accepted if we agree with the proof. This happens rarely though.

In most cases, "this has no solution" needs to be qualified with conditions. It may have no solution with current technology, but may have one in a few years. The answer should state the constraints that keep us from solving the issue now. Then future readers can assess whether those constraints still hold or not.

| |
  • 2
    A lot of things may change in the future. We might even get quantum computers making many statements about cryptography obsolete. I would say that if in the near future something is impossible for all (most) practical means that that is the current solution to the answer and should be marked. The questioner anyway cannot just wait for the future but has to live with the fact that the problem cannot be solved for now. – Trilarion Dec 18 '15 at 21:22

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