8 replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/
source | link

There is already a Physics Overflow. Why then not being more lenient in the Q&A to be accepted in Phys.SE? Mathematics SE has 10 times as many questions. SO leads with +10M questions. Those other sites are thriving yet feel way more welcoming. In contrast, here there are way too many questions put on hold and closed or receiving way too many negative votes, and less activity is seen in discussing a question and its answers. When it comes to off-topic/rules questions, I'd say the goal in those other sites is more on limiting their number than eliminating them all together, which is what here seems to be the case. Up-voting is enough a system for rising the content level; "censoring" not so much, as there is no record left of the "wrong type" of Q&A.

Mind you, SO gives one that kind of reassurance that almost any question either has already been answered or one gets an answered pretty soon. Yes, you may get bad answers, but the good ones rise through the number of answers, not so much through the filtering.

This relates to the question by Anna V. Is the precautionary closing of immature questions so very necessary? I just saw it's from four years ago. What has been the change in the number of Q&A in PSE since then?

As an example of the overwhelming policing: This question had 3 answers and there was a couple of meaningful comments exchanged. No trolling I could see at least. Yet, 5 hours later it was "protected" to avoid spam, "me too" or "thanks"kind of answers. http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/217126/Feynman diagram for attractive forces You really get those answers that often that deserves this level of patrolling?

There is already a Physics Overflow. Why then not being more lenient in the Q&A to be accepted in Phys.SE? Mathematics SE has 10 times as many questions. SO leads with +10M questions. Those other sites are thriving yet feel way more welcoming. In contrast, here there are way too many questions put on hold and closed or receiving way too many negative votes, and less activity is seen in discussing a question and its answers. When it comes to off-topic/rules questions, I'd say the goal in those other sites is more on limiting their number than eliminating them all together, which is what here seems to be the case. Up-voting is enough a system for rising the content level; "censoring" not so much, as there is no record left of the "wrong type" of Q&A.

Mind you, SO gives one that kind of reassurance that almost any question either has already been answered or one gets an answered pretty soon. Yes, you may get bad answers, but the good ones rise through the number of answers, not so much through the filtering.

This relates to the question by Anna V. Is the precautionary closing of immature questions so very necessary? I just saw it's from four years ago. What has been the change in the number of Q&A in PSE since then?

As an example of the overwhelming policing: This question had 3 answers and there was a couple of meaningful comments exchanged. No trolling I could see at least. Yet, 5 hours later it was "protected" to avoid spam, "me too" or "thanks"kind of answers. http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/217126/ You really get those answers that often that deserves this level of patrolling?

There is already a Physics Overflow. Why then not being more lenient in the Q&A to be accepted in Phys.SE? Mathematics SE has 10 times as many questions. SO leads with +10M questions. Those other sites are thriving yet feel way more welcoming. In contrast, here there are way too many questions put on hold and closed or receiving way too many negative votes, and less activity is seen in discussing a question and its answers. When it comes to off-topic/rules questions, I'd say the goal in those other sites is more on limiting their number than eliminating them all together, which is what here seems to be the case. Up-voting is enough a system for rising the content level; "censoring" not so much, as there is no record left of the "wrong type" of Q&A.

Mind you, SO gives one that kind of reassurance that almost any question either has already been answered or one gets an answered pretty soon. Yes, you may get bad answers, but the good ones rise through the number of answers, not so much through the filtering.

This relates to the question by Anna V. Is the precautionary closing of immature questions so very necessary? I just saw it's from four years ago. What has been the change in the number of Q&A in PSE since then?

As an example of the overwhelming policing: This question had 3 answers and there was a couple of meaningful comments exchanged. No trolling I could see at least. Yet, 5 hours later it was "protected" to avoid spam, "me too" or "thanks"kind of answers. Feynman diagram for attractive forces You really get those answers that often that deserves this level of patrolling?

7 replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/
source | link
6 replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/
source | link
5 replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/
source | link
    Tweeted twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/665921586986246144
4 PSE -> Phys.SE
source | link
3 added 442 characters in body
source | link
2 deleted 76 characters in body; edited tags
source | link
1
source | link