5

This question is a story-identification: https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/151238/looking-for-the-story-when-people-experience-life-in-reverse-like-a-movie-which

Normally, questions can't be marked as duplicates unless the dupe has an upvoted or accepted answer, which makes sense.

For story-identification, I believe the policy is that the asker must also confirm that the accepted answer is the same story they were looking for. Is this correct? I believe this question and its discussion is the current consensus policy: Closing Story-Ident questions as duplicates (where there's no acceptance)

In this case, however, the asker confirms in the question itself that they're looking for the same story another person is: Short story where time runs backwards. Does that fulfill the requirement in that consensus? The asker has admitted they're looking for the same story, but how can even they be sure of that when there's no answer?

  • I pinged the author of the original question in comments. If they incorporate the latter question's details into theirs, I think we can close the new one. – Gallifreyan Jan 27 '17 at 10:02
  • In this instance, the policy on duplicates doesn't apply. The OP has posted it *Knowing (and acknowledging) that it's a duplicate. – Valorum Jan 27 '17 at 10:35
  • 2
    @Valorum Believing (and claiming) that it's a duplicate is not the same as knowing (and acknowledging). Consider all the wrong answers to story-ID questions that get posted. If the poster had not been able to recall the title of his wrong answer, he might well say like this guy, "Hey, I'm looking for the same story." – user14111 Jan 28 '17 at 8:53
  • @user14111 - And while that's true, the OP has openly acknowledged that it's a dupe. If it turns out not to be, we have mechanisms to allow the question to be reopened. – Valorum Jan 28 '17 at 9:03
  • 2
    The two questions look like they're asking for different stories. One's from the 1960s/70s, and pivots on a 'Big Bang' event, the other's from the 90s, starts with the main character's death, and only implies what caused the reversal. Are we sure this isn't just an English-as-second-language misunderstanding and when they said "I am looking for the same story", they meant "I am looking for a similar story"? A misunderstanding seems much more likely than deliberately asking a pointless question... – user568458 Jan 30 '17 at 10:35
  • 1
    In this case, the OP of the second question had originally posted it as an answer to the first (deleted; visible to 10k+ users). The standard close comment from review tells the user to ask a new question, which they did. – SQB Jan 30 '17 at 12:19
7

Since the OP of the second question has openly acknowledged that it's a duplicate, I have no hesitation in closing it as such.

Per my comment;

Please don't intentionally create duplicates. If you know it's a dupe but have extra info to share, add it as a comment on the original question (or even as an answer, if you feel your information is meaty enough).

At this point we should work toward two main aims;

  • Keeping a tidy site (Ensuring that the dupe gets closed)

  • Making sure that any additional info in the dupe is added to the original question (presumably in the form of a comment that the original OP will see).

  • Sounds reasonable! – tobiasvl Jan 27 '17 at 15:00
  • @tobiasvl - Reasonable is my middle name. – Valorum Jan 27 '17 at 15:02
  • Richard Reasonable Valorum. Sounds like a Thomas Pynchon character. – tobiasvl Jan 27 '17 at 15:09
  • @tobiasvl - Take that sort of joke to to Literature:SE where it belongs :-P – Valorum Jan 27 '17 at 15:31
  • @Valorum: I was recently considering this... won't those additional details be unsearchable, as part of a comment? – FuzzyBoots Mar 1 '17 at 19:13
  • @FuzzyBoots - Yes, but not if the OP of the original question adds it. If they don't add it, it was probably not helpful. – Valorum Mar 1 '17 at 19:25
6

The two caveats I'd say to the policy of closing this question are

  1. It might not actually be a duplicate in the end
  2. If you don't open your own question, there's no way for you to accept it

If we ever find an answer, this new guy can't confirm that it's an answer to the older question (since he's not them) and he can't accept the answer.

  • Yeah, #1 was what was my original reason for asking, but #2 is more interesting and didn't even occur to me. There are so many non-accepted but answered ID questions out there, too. – tobiasvl Jan 27 '17 at 19:47
  • If we ever solve it on the original, the duper can always post a comment confirming that it's right or he can post a new question (or get his old question reopened) if it's wrong. – Valorum Jan 27 '17 at 19:47

You must log in to answer this question.

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