Similar to "should-hand-histories-have-accepted-answers?", and pursuant to a comment I posted on this answer, What is the best solution to giving equal credit to equally useful multiple answers to a question?
It's important as many hand-history questions will be asked on the main site and I foresee this as a common issue people will face.
In the FAQ, how to ask section, it states that accepting an answer is actually akin to deciding "which answer is the most helpful to you..." and is not about accepting something as definitively correct. That's an important distinction, and undoubtedly one that is misunderstood by a lot of users.
After posting a few hand-histories I find this is a dilemma! On the one hand, I want to reward helpful answers but the system only allows one acceptance. On the other, I don't want to be asked repeatedly to "accept" an answer for the sake of it. That's frankly disrespectful of the usefulness of the system. Also, this will inevitably lead people to regard the accepted answer as correct/better/more relevant/more detailed/etc., and this just isn't true for many cases. It will also sway opinions, which is a negative affect in these specific cases.
I'm not proposing that the system is altered to add additional options to accept multiple answers, as I think that has been adequately discussed on other sites already. See here, here and here for a few highlights on the topic. The issue repeatedly comes up and I'd like to discuss the viewpoint from our unique poker-tinted perspective.
- Found this link which is relevant, Accept rate dilemma.
- Jeff Atwoods own blog on the "Accept" feature. He states "There are certainly cases where you don’t get an answer you like, or the question is inherently unanswerable." [Emphasis is mine]