Instead of decay, you could just embrace the concept of vote inflation. If a site continues to get more popular the number of votes (in both directions) will grow in proportion to that. It is normally a problem, but in this case could be an asset.

This is an interesting point. For sites like Reddit, inflation is just a (minor) drawback because it means total vote count is a measure of (quality * recency) instead of quality.

But for SO, where voting is never locked and content 'ages' at different rates, it's not so clear there's a downside. The "closed as duplicate" issue still stands, but rising user count is probably helping the problem.

It seems like the rate of site growth and the rate at which you expect answer value to age are independent, so it would be surprising if they were approximately the same and cancelled. And at the very least, SO popularity has to plateau at some point (if it hasn't already).

I don't mind the Accepted label, however they are sorted at the top by default. They probably should change that to "sort by votes," so the best answer can change over time.

Accepted answers are not necessary at the top. Here is an example: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6121203/how-to-do-fade-i...

The chosen answer was not the best, so my answer ended up reaching the top. But note that after 7 years, my answer, although still correct, is no longer the most efficient way to do things. Better alternatives are rising up.

It's being sorted by votes. Many times, the accepted is at the top despite higher number of votes being cast for those below.

I'm not sure what the deciding factor is now, perhaps there is a more complicated scoring system happening in the background or it recently changed?

The only case where an accepted answer is not pinned to the top is when the accepted answer was posted by the same user who asked the question. Your link is an example of that.

What is the point of accepting an answer where there are multiple ways to do things, especially over time? It's a misleading signal.

I think its harder than that. Some anwers are just timeless. Others should decay.

Decay will apply to all answers so it'll still stay at the top of the rankings unless a better answer comes along. Tons of options but better than the static scores we have now.

If a better answer comes along in a question with 20 answers already it probably won't get up to the top anytime soon.

If a better answer comes along in a question that is then marked as a repeat of a question that has a worse answer, forget it.

At any rate if a better answer comes along it should rise to the top in the matter of <24hrs.

Yes, that's how it is today. That's why I want proper merging and decay, so that fresh answers actually have a shot of getting to the top while people see a single relevant thread.

Maybe a good answer won't rise to the top, but it will go up over time. I answered a question 7 years after it was asked, and at this point my answer is #8 out of 59. I can't argue that the 7 above me aren't better.

There is also the problems of frameworks and languages evolving, with better ways of doing things in subsequent versions.

If they’re timeless they should continue to get votes, no? Even if everyone stops voting in a thread all the votes would decay at the same rate, so the timeless answer would stay at top.

I can confirm this: I'm getting votes from stuff I have written in the Permian, Triasic and Jurassic periods, respectively.

No. Instead make the “Accepted” moniker have people do “Seconded” for whatever latest version it still works for.

And then the newest users can come and see based on the LATEST version which is the most upvoted answer.

That's just another "vote" then. What's the point of having answers with a vote and a second if people will just do both?

The issue is that relevancy has a time-component, so there needs to be way to age scores as well to make sure the best answer for that time period is at the top.

If there are no new versions, or the new versions have had a tiny uptake, then old answers are relevant!

So what's the problem exactly?