Return to Answer

You allude to high-rep members voting to close elementary questions. I agree that something like that is happening. Many questions which I have found interesting, and which have shown genuine effort (eg Balancing forces on a liquid, No buoyancy inside liquid), have been closed unreasonably (in my opinion), mainly because they are superficially "homework-like". And conversely, many questions which obviously (to me) show little or no effort (such as the thermometer question), or are frivolous or speculative (such as http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/259426), are not closed off.

You allude to high-rep members voting to close elementary questions. I agree that something like that is happening. Many questions which I have found interesting, and which have shown genuine effort (eg Balancing forces on a liquid, No buoyancy inside liquid), have been closed unreasonably (in my opinion), mainly because they are superficially "homework-like". And conversely, many questions which obviously (to me) show little or no effort (such as the thermometer question), or are frivolous or speculative (such as https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/259426), are not closed off.

This question might be directed at me. I cast a lot of down-votes because of insufficient research effort, including both the thermometer calibration and the electric field energy questions which you quote. So I dispute John Rennie's claim to be the leading exponent in this field!

I am not offended. Debate is good.

My reason for down-voting is not elitism, but because detailed answers to many fact-finding questions like the thermometer calibration question are already available on the internet (eg http://www.coleparmer.com/TechLibraryArticle/358), and I think it is pointless for PSE to duplicate such resources. In this question the OP demonstrates no research effort at all and gives the impression of casual curiosity. ("...This is quite vague, but I was just thinking about it...")

In the electric field energy question the OP says he has just started studying EM and "just read what some books call the energy OF a electric field." However, he does not question what these books say - which would be reasonable. Some explanation is very likely to be there later in the textbooks. But instead of reading further or researching, or discussing with classmates, or asking his teacher, the OP prematurely asks PSE to explain it to him, probably because that is the easiest option.

The impression I get is that such OPs are using PSE to avoid doing their own research or thinking. They would prefer that somebody else took the trouble to find relevant sources, filter out what is relevant to their interests, and spoon-feed them the answers. This does not encourage them to become good scientists, and in my opinion should be discouraged. If it is bad to provide detailed calculations for "homework-like" questions which the OP could do for himself, it must also be bad to provide detailed answers to requests for factual information which the OP could easily find for himself.

I always provide a comment to challenge the OP to reveal what research he/she has done. That is a positive response, not a negative one. Nobody should be in science who takes criticism personally.

I agree with a lot of what John Rennie says. Lazy and ill-motivated questions should be actively deterred (eg "I was wondering, what would happen if...?"). Unlike John I don't have rep to cast closing votes, so I down-vote instead.

In particular I agree that (probably) no objective criterion can be devised for what is "insufficient research effort". However, I suggest that questions could be entered into a template which includes fields which ask (inter alia) eg "What effort have you made to find an answer before posting on PSE?" It won't solve the problem entirely, but it should remind OPs what is expected of them.

I have absolutely no problem with "low level" questions. I've enjoyed several elementary questions which are surprisingly difficult to answer and therefore instructive for me also. My beef, like John's, is with laziness, regardless of level.

You allude to high-rep members voting to close elementary questions. I agree that something like that is happening. Many questions which I have found interesting, and which have shown genuine effort (eg Balancing forces on a liquid, No buoyancy inside liquid), have been closed unreasonably (in my opinion), mainly because they are superficially "homework-like". And conversely, many questions which obviously (to me) show little or no effort (such as the thermometer question), or are frivolous or speculative (such as http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/259426), are not closed off.

So as far as I can see, the criteria mentioned in the PSE policy statements, and cited in the reasons for closure, are not being applied.

This question might be directed at me. I cast a lot of down-votes because of insufficient research effort, including both the thermometer calibration and the electric field energy questions which you quote. So I dispute John Rennie's claim to be the leading exponent in this field!

I am not offended. Debate is good.

My reason for down-voting is not elitism, but because detailed answers to many fact-finding questions like the thermometer calibration question are already available on the internet (eg http://www.coleparmer.com/TechLibraryArticle/358), and I think it is pointless for PSE to duplicate such resources. In this question the OP demonstrates no research effort at all and gives the impression of casual curiosity. ("...This is quite vague, but I was just thinking about it...")

In the electric field energy question the OP says he has just started studying EM and "just read what some books call the energy OF a electric field." However, he does not question what these books say - which would be reasonable. Some explanation is very likely to be there later in the textbooks. But instead of reading further or researching, or discussing with classmates, or asking his teacher, the OP prematurely asks PSE to explain it to him, probably because that is the easiest option.

The impression I get is that such OPs are using PSE to avoid doing their own research or thinking. They would prefer that somebody else took the trouble to find relevant sources, filter out what is relevant to their interests, and spoon-feed them the answers. This does not encourage them to become good scientists, and in my opinion should be discouraged. If it is bad to provide detailed calculations for "homework-like" questions which the OP could do for himself, it must also be bad to provide detailed answers to requests for factual information which the OP could easily find for himself.

I always provide a comment to challenge the OP to reveal what research he/she has done. That is a positive response, not a negative one. Nobody should be in science who takes criticism personally.

I agree with a lot of what John Rennie says. Lazy and ill-motivated questions should be actively deterred (eg "I was wondering, what would happen if...?"). Unlike John I don't have rep to cast closing votes, so I down-vote instead.

In particular I agree that (probably) no objective criterion can be devised for what is "insufficient research effort". However, I suggest that questions could be entered into a template which includes fields which ask (inter alia) eg "What effort have you made to find an answer before posting on PSE?" It won't solve the problem entirely, but it should remind OPs what is expected of them.

I have absolutely no problem with "low level" questions. I've enjoyed several elementary questions which are surprisingly difficult to answer and therefore instructive for me also. My beef, like John's, is with laziness, regardless of level.

You allude to high-rep members voting to close elementary questions. I agree that something like that is happening. Many questions which I have found interesting, and which have shown genuine effort (eg Balancing forces on a liquid, No buoyancy inside liquid), have been closed unreasonably (in my opinion), mainly because they are superficially "homework-like". And conversely, many questions which obviously (to me) show little or no effort (such as the thermometer question), or are frivolous or speculative (such as http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/259426), are not closed off.

So, as far as I can see, the criteria mentioned in the PSE policy statements, and cited in the reasons for closure, are not being applied consistently.

This question might be directed at me. I cast a lot of down-votes because of insufficient research effort, including both the thermometer calibration and the electric field energy questions which you quote. So I dispute John Rennie's claim to be the leading exponent in this field!

I am not offended. Debate is good.

My reason for down-voting is not elitism, but because detailed answers to many fact-finding questions like the thermometer calibration question are already available on the internet, and I think it is pointless for PSE to duplicate such resources. In this question the OP demonstrates no research effort at all and gives the impression of casual curiosity. ("...This is quite vague, but I was just thinking about it...")

In the electric field energy question the OP says he has just started studying EM and "just read what some books call the energy OF a electric field." However, he does not question what these books say - which would be reasonable. Some explanation is very likely to be there later in the textbooks. But instead of reading or researching, or discussing with classmates, or asking his teacher, the OP prematurely asks PSE to explain it to him, probably because that is the easiest option.

The impression I get is that such OPs are using PSE to avoid doing their own research or thinking. They would prefer that somebody else took the trouble to find relevant sources, filter out what is relevant to their interests, and spoon-feed them the answers. This does not encourage them to become good scientists, and in my opinion should be discouraged. If it is bad to provide detailed calculations for "homework-like" questions which the OP could do for himself, it must also be bad to provide detailed answers to requests for factual information which the OP could easily find for himself.

I always provide a comment to challenge the OP to reveal what research he/she has done. That is a positive response, not a negative one. Nobody should be in science who takes criticism personally.

I agree with a lot of what John Rennie says. Lazy and ill-motivated questions should be actively deterred (eg "I was wondering, what would happen if...?"). Unlike John I don't have rep to cast closing votes, so I down-vote instead.

In particular I agree that no objective criterion can be devised for what is "insufficient research effort". However, I suggest that questions could be entered into a template which includes fields which ask (inter alia) eg "What effort have you made to find an answer before posting on PSE?" It won't solve the problem entirely, but it should remind OPs what is expected of them.

I have absolutely no problem with "low level" questions. I've enjoyed several elementary questions which are surprisingly difficult to answer and therefore instructive for me also. My beef, like John's, is with laziness, regardless of level.

You allude to high-rep members voting to close elementary questions. I agree that something like that is happening. Many questions which I have found interesting, and which have shown genuine effort (eg Balancing forces on a liquid, No buoyancy inside liquid), have been closed unreasonably (in my opinion), mainly because they are superficially "homework-like". And conversely, many questions which obviously (to me) show little or no effort (such as the thermometer question), or are frivolous or speculative (such as http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/259426), are not closed off.

So as far as I can see, the criteria mentioned in the PSE policy statements, and cited in the reasons for closure, are not being applied.

This question might be directed at me. I cast a lot of down-votes because of insufficient research effort, including both the thermometer calibration and the electric field energy questions which you quote. So I dispute John Rennie's claim to be the leading exponent in this field!

I am not offended. Debate is good.

My reason for down-voting is not elitism, but because detailed answers to many fact-finding questions like the thermometer calibration question are already available on the internet (eg http://www.coleparmer.com/TechLibraryArticle/358), and I think it is pointless for PSE to duplicate such resources. In this question the OP demonstrates no research effort at all and gives the impression of casual curiosity. ("...This is quite vague, but I was just thinking about it...")

In the electric field energy question the OP says he has just started studying EM and "just read what some books call the energy OF a electric field." However, he does not question what these books say - which would be reasonable. Some explanation is very likely to be there later in the textbooks. But instead of reading further or researching, or discussing with classmates, or asking his teacher, the OP prematurely asks PSE to explain it to him, probably because that is the easiest option.

The impression I get is that such OPs are using PSE to avoid doing their own research or thinking. They would prefer that somebody else took the trouble to find relevant sources, filter out what is relevant to their interests, and spoon-feed them the answers. This does not encourage them to become good scientists, and in my opinion should be discouraged. If it is bad to provide detailed calculations for "homework-like" questions which the OP could do for himself, it must also be bad to provide detailed answers to requests for factual information which the OP could easily find for himself.

I always provide a comment to challenge the OP to reveal what research he/she has done. That is a positive response, not a negative one. Nobody should be in science who takes criticism personally.

I agree with a lot of what John Rennie says. Lazy and ill-motivated questions should be actively deterred (eg "I was wondering, what would happen if...?"). Unlike John I don't have rep to cast closing votes, so I down-vote instead.

In particular I agree that (probably) no objective criterion can be devised for what is "insufficient research effort". However, I suggest that questions could be entered into a template which includes fields which ask (inter alia) eg "What effort have you made to find an answer before posting on PSE?" It won't solve the problem entirely, but it should remind OPs what is expected of them.

I have absolutely no problem with "low level" questions. I've enjoyed several elementary questions which are surprisingly difficult to answer and therefore instructive for me also. My beef, like John's, is with laziness, regardless of level.

You allude to high-rep members voting to close elementary questions. I agree that something like that is happening. Many questions which I have found interesting, and which have shown genuine effort (eg Balancing forces on a liquid, No buoyancy inside liquid), have been closed unreasonably (in my opinion), mainly because they are superficially "homework-like". And conversely, many questions which obviously (to me) show little or no effort (such as the thermometer question), or are frivolous or speculative (such as http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/259426), are not closed off.

So as far as I can see, the criteria mentioned in the PSE policy statements, and cited in the reasons for closure, are not being applied.