This question Good books to understand the basics of material science Was marked as duplicate and redirected to Best Materials Science Introduction Book? The thing is, the second question was particularly about Neutron scattering.But in the first question, I asked for an introductory undergrad text like the book by Van Vlack(Fortunately someone answered my question).Clearly, Neutron scattering seems to be advanced(at least for me).Does this mean, this site is only for researchers and scientists? While voting a question as duplicate, do people read the content of the question or just compare the titles?. I even flagged the question, explaining that it is not a duplicate.But, I got no response.(In particular, I think "Chair" was one of the persons who voted it duplicate.I am not accusing him.But would like an explanation from him.)
1 Answer
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
17
Apparently I'm one of the people who voted to close this, so I can easily give my opinion on this situation.
His question specifically was:
"What would you suggest as a good introduction to materials science?"
While yours stated:
"suggest me some good books(introductory level) to understand the basics of material science."
These two questions are identical besides formatting.
There is a note added which says:
"Prior usage and examples would be wonderful, my particular focus is neutron scattering"
but that doesn't really change the base of their question. The question is still about a good introductory book for material science. They didn't even really say the books had to discuss those topics at all. They were just showing what their interests/focuses were.
You can also see this good related answer on a very similar topic which gives a good rundown of some reasons why such questions would be closed as duplicates, even in less obvious situations.
-
$\begingroup$ Ok.That note might not change the base of the question.But the answers were all about that "Neutron Scattering".I read these answers and I didnt get the answer I needed.So thats why I asked a new question.I even explained this while I flagged the question.But got no response.Doesnt this qualify it as a new question? $\endgroup$– user196272Sep 10, 2018 at 19:12
-
1$\begingroup$ @Mohan Not really, no. The link I put at the end explains some of the difficulty with Resource Recommendations and Duplicates. I think it's possible for you to perhaps explain in more detail to make your question specific enough so that it is not a duplicate. I think it's very unlikely though. To be perfectly honest; I don't think this site is the best for handing resource recommendations for such a topic like this anyways. $\endgroup$– JMacSep 10, 2018 at 19:19
-
$\begingroup$ And from the link you mentioned,I can understand that restrictions are needed for these type of questions.But a question about books on neutron scattering(I have no idea about it,I assume its a part of material science) can be redirected to a question about books for material science but the other way doesnt seem logical because material science is general but neutron scattering is specific. $\endgroup$– user196272Sep 10, 2018 at 19:27
-
2$\begingroup$ I don't really buy the claim that the answers in the open duplicate are all about neutron scattering; some of the suggested resources are specific to that field but several are marked as more general. If the claim were true, and the currently-closed question were substantially improved, I'd see a case for editing the old question to give it an exclusive neutron-scattering focus and reopening the new one, but I don't really see it. And it doesn't really help that the new question is far out of what site policy sets as the standard. $\endgroup$ Sep 10, 2018 at 19:28
-
2$\begingroup$ @Mohan You need to re-read his question then. It's not specifically about neutron scattering. The body of the text is quite clear; "What would you suggest as a good introduction to materials science?" He then leaves as an additional note that he's focused on neutron scattering. That doesn't mean the text should focus on, or even technically mention it. They just provided some motivation for learning the topic, so there's a chance that some suggestions would be geared towards approaching scattering in the future. His wording is still almost identical to what you asked for. $\endgroup$– JMacSep 10, 2018 at 19:30
-
$\begingroup$ I think, except the book Callister discussed in the answer, nothing else seems to be about introductory material science.Does this one word make this question generic about material science?(I had tried Callister but I couldnt understand certain things.Thats the reason I asked the question in the first place I think it doesnt matters here) $\endgroup$– user196272Sep 10, 2018 at 19:37
-
1$\begingroup$ @JMac It is not about the question itself, it is about the responses it got. That small remark on neutron scattering impacted the recommendations made in the comments. "This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question." - The answers in that previous clearly did not address Mohan's concern. $\endgroup$ Sep 10, 2018 at 19:40
-
$\begingroup$ @EmilioPisanty " If the claim were true, and the currently-closed question were substantially improved, I'd see a case for editing the old question to give it an exclusive neutron-scattering focus and reopening the new one" - That seems like a good solution, why not implementing it? $\endgroup$ Sep 10, 2018 at 19:42
-
3$\begingroup$ @Mohan The existing question is specifically worded to ask for general texts, so it's pretty tricky territory to edit the question in a way that leaves parts of the answers as off-topic. At a first brush, this puts you in the situation of "I wish an existing question had better answers", which isn't enough grounds to re-post the question. $\endgroup$ Sep 10, 2018 at 19:43
-
$\begingroup$ @Mohan It's actually the entire sentence before the question mark (i.e. the question) that makes it generic about material science. I will re-iterate this for the third time, his actual question literally states "What would you suggest as a good introduction to materials science?" while yours states "suggest me some good books(introductory level) to understand the basics of material science". You've basically just re-arranged the words. If you've looked at another answer and it didn't help, at very least I would mention why it didn't help so people don't have to guess your intent. $\endgroup$– JMacSep 10, 2018 at 19:43
-
2$\begingroup$ @user190081 For one, I don't think the claim is true. But more importantly, the implementation of that solution rests on whether Mohan does (or doesn't) perform the substantial edits required to bring the new question in line with the site policy for resource-recommendation questions; as detailed there, it is not enough to say "I want books on X". Recommendation questions are a terrible fit for this site's format, and the hard-fought consensus was to allow them if they clear a high bar. The existing question doesn't. $\endgroup$ Sep 10, 2018 at 19:46
-
1$\begingroup$ @user190081 We close questions based on the questions themselves, not on the answers they got. If you are going to ask a new question, you at very least need to explain that you've found the other one and it wasn't sufficient, then elaborate on what you need that isn't included there. The fact that no one really answered it suggests to me that not many people here have the desire to suggest introductory materials science books. Recommendation questions are really hard to make good quality here. They just don't jive well with the format. $\endgroup$– JMacSep 10, 2018 at 19:48
-
$\begingroup$ Ok guys.Thanks for trying to help me.Actually, as I have mentioned in this question(physics meta question),I have got my answer(fortunately someone answered my question).I was just trying to explain what happened.It seems certain things cannot be changed.I have nothing to loose.But some other person might experience the same I experienced. $\endgroup$– user196272Sep 10, 2018 at 19:51
-
1$\begingroup$ @Mohan " If you are going to ask a new question, you at very least need to explain that you've found the other one and it wasn't sufficient, then elaborate on what you need that isn't included there" + ''o bring the new question in line with the site policy for resource-recommendation questions' Mohan, I think the message is clear now, you need to be more specific, write a better question. $\endgroup$ Sep 10, 2018 at 19:52
-
1$\begingroup$ @user190081 Well, the idea is that the question will pick up more answers that are not so focused on solid state physics in the future. It's not an unusual thing that the answer(s) to a given a resource recommendation question, at some point in time, focus only on a subset of the topic being requested. $\endgroup$– David ZSep 10, 2018 at 21:01