I asked a unique question, I agree that implicitly the answer of the other question leads to a answer of my question through inference logic. But, the question is unique and very different than the duplicate. So if someone searches for the question he will not find it.

The claim "This question has been asked before" is provable wrong.

Can you execute a contract twice in one block?

| |
  • 2
    I thought they would still be in search... It can be flagged to be reopened. I agree limited dupes are ok and I'll follow ths more (esp if they don't show in search): blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/11/… With the question in OP, is it the title that's different, or the content in the OP? Hard to tell what the difference is in the content; the title is clearly different. – eth Jun 2 '16 at 19:34
  • The content is also different, all but the last sentence. Dont know about search either. Atwood loves duplicates, now I don't know what to do with this info... – Roland Kofler Jun 2 '16 at 19:42
  • +1 flag it for reopening and let the community decide. – Afr Jun 2 '16 at 20:03

A question is an "exact duplicate" if it will generate the same answers as another previous question and doesn't expand the topic in a substantial way. So, it must both produce similar answers but disallow completely different answers.

We keep the duplicate headers, because they redirect more people to find the correct answers as they can now discover them through different search terms. It is not necessary that the question is phrased exactly the same.

| |
  • Politely disagree. the administrators have put a "This question already has an answer here:" which makes totaly sense. "This question is duplicate" not. It is much better to communicate clearly than introducing a technical jargon that should rectify what would have been easier to say straight in the first place. "exact duplicate". Even the newly introduced term doesn't make sense. Semantically and by common sense a question is an exact duplicate if the same is asked, not(!) if the answer is the same. "Is it raining?" and "is 1+1=2?" are "exact duplicates" by your standard ;-) – Roland Kofler Jul 5 '16 at 9:02
  • Actually, the question you linked above was closed as a duplicate. This shows up with an [duplicate] appended to the title, and a textbox linking where the question was previously answered. This close-reason is called "exact duplicate" although I like to put it into quotation marks because it's not "exact" in the literal sense. Your example in the end doesn't adhere to what I stated here, because weather and formal logic are completely different topics which allow vastly different answers: "Yes, it's raining" and "Yes, it's even an axiom" are not interchangeable answers. – Murch Jul 5 '16 at 9:46
  • Meanwhile "Can I do X twice?" would be a duplicate of "How often can I do X?" which it appears to be the case here. On the other hand, "How often can I do X?" wouldn't necessarily a duplicate of "Can I do X twice?". – Murch Jul 5 '16 at 9:47
  • why do you need the word 'exact', are there unexact duplicates? – Roland Kofler Jul 5 '16 at 12:59
  • I was going to say that it's just the name the duplication close reason has, but I've realized that they've dropped the "exact" meanwhile. Sorry, I hadn't realized that it had changed. – Murch Jul 5 '16 at 13:02

You must log in to answer this question.

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