I posted a response to this question yesterday:

Can two or more different models of Yongnuo flash work together?

It is a perfectly valid question, the OP is asking if different models of Yongnuo flash will work together, or if they would need to be all the same.

Then it was marked as duplicate, the duplicate being this question:

What are the Yongnuo flash naming conventions?

The proposed duplicate doesn't contain anything at all to answer the OP's question. I couldn't believe my eyes quite frankly. Is it just OK now to mark everything as duplicate without even reading the details?

I admit that the OP started asking about how they can achieve it, but in the description was asking if it was possible. The OP however is specifically asking about only Yongnuo flashes working together.

The proposed duplicate is asking if it is possible to pair a Yongnuo flash with a Nikon SB900.

Furthermore, there are certain scenarios where the extra Yongnuo flashes may or may not work, depending on the setup and none of that is included in the duplicate, regardless of Nikon or Yongnuo, apart from a little bit about TTL.

It's this kind of thing that annoys me about SE. It's clear that someone marked this question down and then all the robots jumped on it. The rules say that in order to have a question re-opened, that you must explain why the suggested duplicate doesn't answer the question. I think it would be better if every person who marked it as a duplicate should clearly explain why they think the suggestion provides an answer, clearly citing all references to prove that they didn't just mark it down because someone else had, or because someone was an inexperienced user (which also happens too often).

  • \$\begingroup\$ Just one other thing to add before everyone goes off looking for a true duplicate. I'm not saying it definitely hasn't been answered already, because I honestly haven't looked, but the proposed duplicate is certainly not a duplicate. \$\endgroup\$
    – connersz
    Commented Dec 3, 2014 at 9:27
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Just to clarify - you're talking about humans voting robotically, not actual automated votes, right? \$\endgroup\$
    – hairboat
    Commented Dec 3, 2014 at 21:06
  • \$\begingroup\$ @abbyhairboat - That's how I read it. \$\endgroup\$
    – Joanne C
    Commented Dec 3, 2014 at 23:33
  • \$\begingroup\$ For the record, I'm pretty sure I voted to put that on hold as unclear, because without an answer to the question I posted in the comments, it's completely a guess as to what the answer might be. \$\endgroup\$
    – mattdm
    Commented Dec 4, 2014 at 0:18
  • \$\begingroup\$ If you want to edit the question to add clarifying details based on the comment posted later in response to your article, I'd be happy to vote to reopen — although, really, it's still not quite understandable since you offer a series of different possibilities and the response is "yes". Yes to which? \$\endgroup\$
    – mattdm
    Commented Dec 4, 2014 at 0:20
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ And if you edit the question to improve it, it will automatically be put in the queue for review to be reopened. \$\endgroup\$
    – mattdm
    Commented Dec 4, 2014 at 0:31
  • \$\begingroup\$ @mattdm There is not that much to the question. The OP just wants to know if he can use different Yongnuo models together. The answer in it's simplest form is yes, but there are different ways to achieve it. Those different ways are somewhat covered in the duplicate suggestion but it only goes part way of answering the secondary part of the question. It's not too difficult to understand it, you just need to take your finger off the trigger for a moment and read the details. \$\endgroup\$
    – connersz
    Commented Dec 4, 2014 at 9:12
  • \$\begingroup\$ I disagree, read the details, am not a robot, and don't have my "finger on the trigger". I don't understand why you are coming at this with such an antagonistic tone. If you disagree with the collective decision to close a question, it's not necessarily because you're smarter than everyone else. Do what you can to improve it and vote to reopen and we all win. \$\endgroup\$
    – mattdm
    Commented Dec 4, 2014 at 9:19
  • \$\begingroup\$ possible duplicate of Do people just not read the whole question? \$\endgroup\$
    – mattdm
    Commented Dec 4, 2014 at 9:19
  • \$\begingroup\$ I have updated the question because ultimately someone needed to. It's just a shame that you're preventing new users from understanding how the site works by being so quick to mark it as duplicate and @mattdm I noticed that you were the first to jump on the technicalities of "how" they can work together rather than "if" they can work together and you didn't wait for an answer to your question before marking it as a duplicate. \$\endgroup\$
    – connersz
    Commented Dec 4, 2014 at 9:31
  • \$\begingroup\$ When questions are unclear, suggesting possible duplicates is one way to offer possible existing solutions to the user. There's nothing wrong with that, and I'm still mystified as to why you are so hostile about this. \$\endgroup\$
    – mattdm
    Commented Dec 4, 2014 at 9:42
  • \$\begingroup\$ @mattdm Because I fully agree with you on that principle, but I have always been of the opinion that when certain users see something marked down, they will just mark it down themselves without even looking at the details and it's all done so quick. I actually thought it was a good question but the user being of very low rep will probably never accept my updates which ultimately means it will be lost for good unfortunately. \$\endgroup\$
    – connersz
    Commented Dec 4, 2014 at 9:54
  • \$\begingroup\$ The user doesn't need to accept your edits. All it takes is review by two site members with edit privs. So don't despair, at least not on that account. \$\endgroup\$
    – mattdm
    Commented Dec 4, 2014 at 9:57
  • \$\begingroup\$ How is it possible to raise the edits for an administrators attention? At the moment it is telling me it will need to be reviewed. \$\endgroup\$
    – connersz
    Commented Dec 4, 2014 at 10:01
  • \$\begingroup\$ It goes in a review queue similar to the close votes queue. It's usually cleared quite quickly. (Perhaps somewhat ironic given the topic at hand!) Once you hit 2000 rep you can edit with no need for peer review. \$\endgroup\$
    – mattdm
    Commented Dec 4, 2014 at 11:36

1 Answer 1


I don't think that's specifically the case here, I think the users think that the response on the other question contains the answer. There is truth to that, but I think it's unlikely that a newcomer would find that question based on the answers alone and the action is off-putting to say the least. It's also entirely counter-intuitive, a remarkable logic condition for a site heavily frequented by software developers and similar techies.

Anyways, my view is we're way too quick with the duplicate state based on this kind of thing. The question is not a duplicate and that there is information in the one that pertains to the other is insufficient reason to close in my opinion. A little bit of duplication on the answer front isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Still, I don't generally like to override the will of the community unless it is blatantly wrong or fails to account for changes that have been made once the votes started.

  • \$\begingroup\$ The question is perfectly valid on it's own. A photography newbie is quite right to ask, "hey can I use a Yongnuo 480 with a 560?" for example. They might then be interested in how to achieve that setup which is covered in the duplicate suggestion but that question is not directly asked initially. \$\endgroup\$
    – connersz
    Commented Dec 4, 2014 at 9:15

You must log in to answer this question.

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