Too often lately, I've clicked a thread with an interesting question to find a stickied moderator post, a few follow-up questions, and a field of deleted comments. No answers in sight. It's rather annoying to see a thread has 50+ comments and go in expecting an interesting answer, just to see the comment graveyard.
To be clear, I'm not complaining about the mass deleted comments. I understand the policy and I think it makes for good, clean, thorough answers. I'd just like a way to know if those 53 comments are discussing a great answer or just a thread that drew in a bunch of against-the-rules posts.
I'm just going to quote myself from the last thread on the topic:
The problem with having an "answered question" flair is that it implies that there are no more answers to be had, and that we're basically done. This is obviously never the case in history -- there is always more questions to be asked, and everything can always be expanded on.
Furthermore, we're not experts at literally everything; moderators, flaired users, and regular users all have gaps in our knowledge. Moderators are obviously better equipped to generally understand what a "decent" answer might be, but even the mods are fallible sometimes, and mods do make mistakes. If the moderators are fallible, regular users are even more so.
Both of these are the main reasons why mods are generally reluctant about adding an "answered question" flair.
I have seen this request several times and given it some thought. Every time it appears, the moderators explain that adding an answered tag privileges certain answers in a way that is anathema to askhistorians' objectives. While I agree with the moderators' rationale, I believe that there is potential solution that could avoid privileging certain users or answers.
Fundamentally, the request for an answered tag seems to stem from confusion or disappointment over threads with high comment counts but no actual responses. I know that when I open a thread with twenty or more comments, I get excited for substantive responses and robust follow-up. Finding nothing but [Comment removed] leads to disappointment. I suspect that it is that anticipation and disappointment that drives the answered tag requests.
That suspicion leads me to my suggestion. Rather using a tag based on answers, why not create a tag that denotes heavy moderation? Call it the "comment graveyard" tag. The moderators would set some sort of comment deletion threshold. Upon crossing that threshold, the moderators apply the tag and users receive fair warning of the thread's contents. Users can maintain appropriate expectations, while moderators do not have make subjective evaluations of the thread's answers.
I suspect that this idea may have some downsides that I have not considered. Perhaps the "comment graveyard" tag will discourage users from ever opening the thread. Perhaps it will discourage viable answers. But at first glance, it seems to address users' and moderators' concerns about noting threads with lots of action but few answers.
What seems to be needed is a tag that implies the following:
There's a top level comment.
This comment was reviewed by a mod who thinks it's up to this sub standards.
This comment is not a follow-up question.
You can just assign a random name to this tag. Maybe "content" or "active" tag. I'll quickly explain how this tag avoids the problems of every tag that's been proposed and has some additional benefits.
It does not imply that the question "has been solved".
It doesn't discriminate against good answer by users with no flair.
It makes life easier for people interested in a particular answer. They won't have to check a thread every time the comment count rises.
It makes discussions easier, since experts can know straightaway that there's a top level comment in a question about their area of expertise.
This does not consider the practical difficulties of implementing such a tag.
This has been brought up and discussed many, many times, most recently just a month ago.