Timeline for Why is this question not considered an off-topic homework problem?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 10, 2019 at 18:06 | comment | added | Chris Mod | RE: the bounty being added early, according to the timeline the question was open for three days before being bountied. In that time, it received 9 upvotes, and no downvotes or close votes. | |
| Jul 10, 2019 at 13:00 | comment | added | BioPhysicist | @EmilioPisanty No apology needed. You felt the need for consensus on this particular question, and you acted accordingly. It certainly has brought attention to an interesting problem. | |
| Jul 10, 2019 at 6:08 | comment | added | Emilio Pisanty | @Aaron I'm going to duck out of that question same as rob did - I don't think I can evaluate what I would have done if I'd seen the question without any answers. I probably would have left it alone, but I don't think I would have opposed homework VTCs. I'm sorry that the bounty is preventing folks from voting to close, but by this stage I think we're locked into the current status quo until the bounty runs its course. | |
| Jul 10, 2019 at 1:24 | comment | added | BioPhysicist | @EmilioPisanty Are you saying you would have voted to close the question had there not been answers (or at least "contradictory and untrustable answers") at the time you viewed the question? | |
| Jul 10, 2019 at 1:23 | comment | added | BioPhysicist | @EmilioPisanty I greatly appreciate your answers and input on this site. I also completely understand your reasoning for the bounty. With that being said, I don't think anyone here is saying we shouldn't act like physicists here. This is more about the site, how it's policies should be enacted, and whether or not those policies should be loosened in certain situations. I didn't mean for this post to be a specific attack on you, but for it to be more of a general discussion motivated by this specific question. | |
| Jul 9, 2019 at 22:18 | comment | added | Emilio Pisanty | The goal of the bounty was not to turn the question into a res-recomm thread. The goal was to try to fix the mess of contradictory and untrustable answers that were already present. This is why the bounty asks for self-contained derivations (not literature reviews) with suitable literature support. You know, like we do in physics. | |
| Jul 9, 2019 at 20:41 | comment | added | BioPhysicist | Yeah I figured a lot of this was true. So it seems like your opinion is that as long as the question is found to be interesting enough by enough people then it's ok for the question and answers to go against what is usually accepted? And also when this happens that it's ok for bounties to explicitly call for such activity? I agree the problem is very interesting, which I guess why is this is so conflicting. | |
| Jul 9, 2019 at 19:34 | comment | added | JMac | My take on it is that someone else should be posting a new question to actually attack the things that people are looking at with the answers to this question. Everyone is clearly finding interesting stuff; but it's all being done on a horrible example of what a good question looks like. Sure, the answers are interesting, but as far as the content of the question is concerned, someone could ask the same thing where the answer is just basic SHM, and I'm pretty sure the community wouldn't think too highly of that. I might turn this into an answer later; no time to organize it ATM. | |
| Jul 9, 2019 at 19:08 | history | edited | robMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 13 characters in body
|
| Jul 9, 2019 at 18:50 | history | answered | robMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |