Of course, in view of the fact that Mathew Daws declined the bounty it is evident that he did not answer 'for the money'. And, there was added personal motivation with the last revison, too. So in some sense I am not sure whether I agree or disagree with you.
I'd say whether the bounty was relevant at all is hard to tell; however what I think could have made a difference (except it was a purely random effect that the person having an answer just noticed it with that revision) is that it was communicate that the answer is important for the person asking it. Whether or not it was the case in this case, I think this can make a relevant difference. (At least it does for me. If I get the impression the questioner really cares this a completely different situation than when I get the impression the questioner just asked because, well, why not ask an MO question.)
Yet I (too?) think the better way to cumminicate this, is to write this personal motivation. Other ways are bounties (of various kinds).
However, perhaps one should not completely disregard the 'other side'. Some people might simply really want to offer something for the help/information.
(Edit: sorry for posting this initially essentiallt identically twice by a stupid error)
]]>Gerhard "Don't Bother To Dream Small" Paseman, 2011.11.25
]]>I also think (bounty offered) can be changed to (bounty paid) or (bounty withdrawn), if bounty status becomes important. However, the bounty should not get more emphasis than the problem. Also, the MathOverflow system uses square brackets [] for things like [closed], so if this format is adopted I will strongly suggest that parentheses () are used for bounty status.
Finally, it is my hope that bounties remain an occasional item, and that I don't start using MathOverflow as a way to make quick coffee or beer money.
Gerhard "...User Interfaces Would Be Unstable" Paseman, 2011.11.25
]]>Finally, if one can 'buy' a result with 100 Euro why not with 500 reps? (If the practice of assigning relevance to MO presence in admission procedures and alike catches on, these points could get some actual value after all; indeed, joking aside, I am much more worried about such developments, than that somebody will 'buy' results on MO and then not quote the 'producer'.)
]]>I am not so sure about allowing the prize of a live goose, though...
]]>So part of me leans against the idea of allowing bounties outside the already-existing MO system of bounties. But I don't have strong feelings on this.
]]>In fact I could only see one justification to forbid this, namely that somebody would explain that there might be some legal problems.
]]>