4
$\begingroup$

I had spent some time answering this question, when it was made duplicate by an announcement at the top "this question will no longer be accepting answers".

Would it not be possible to give ten minutes grace for people who are in the process of writing an answer? "in ten minutes this question will not be accepting any answers"

Since my answer was not an answer to the duplicate question (where I would have transferred it, as I have often done), but an expansion on the way singularities are handled in mainstream physics, I also took some time making it into four comments so that the OP could see the depth of the question's answers in physics, not just mathematics.

My four comments were also removed as saying there should be no answer in comments!! Catch 22.

$\endgroup$
36
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ As meta.stackexchange.com/q/91922/263383 shows, this would probably be technically possible, but I'm unconvinced it's a good idea. If the question is closed for any reason other than being a duplicate, then the question is off-topic and we do not want users to answer it at all. If it's closed as a duplicate and you feel the answer you wanted to give to it does not fit as an answer to the duplicate, then that would be a sign that the two questions are not duplicate and you should vote to reopen.. $\endgroup$
    – ACuriousMind Mod
    Apr 11 '20 at 10:07
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @ACuriousMind Moderators are not the Pope, and often it is questions from young students which are closed. An answer that illuminates some physics to the student should not be a problem for the objectives of the site, particularly as closed questions are not seen in search engines, and might help a student find his/her way into the intricacies of mainstream physics. Also think: if the moderator had seen the question ten minutes later, the answer would be there, in the closed question. $\endgroup$
    – anna v
    Apr 11 '20 at 10:47
  • $\begingroup$ @annav Questions are closed based on the question themselves, not the types of answers the question might receive. The closure of a question is not an indication of the quality, utility, etc. of potential answers. $\endgroup$ Apr 11 '20 at 15:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @AaronStevens I am talkng of spending some time in composing an answer to an open question up to the minute I am writing and then I cannot post the answer. I am asking for 10 minutes grace to the closure , which is the same delay in closure as if the moderator had looked and decided 10 minute later. $\endgroup$
    – anna v
    Apr 11 '20 at 16:28
  • $\begingroup$ @annav Sorry, I was responding to your comment to ACM $\endgroup$ Apr 11 '20 at 16:33
  • $\begingroup$ Another case for FGITW (initially submitting a one-sentence answer and then extend/revise it in many revisions). $\endgroup$ Apr 11 '20 at 16:43
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @PeterMortensen I don't think that should be done, as stated in DavidZ's comment $\endgroup$ Apr 11 '20 at 16:45
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Aaron Ah, well that's not specifically what I had in mind, but if it's done to get around the closure of a question, I would also consider that abuse of the system just as if the answer had not been deleted and undeleted. If the question doesn't get closed, I suppose it's not a great practice but it wouldn't really be causing any harm. $\endgroup$
    – David Z
    Apr 13 '20 at 19:59
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Aaron Yeah, I think just flag. I can't think of anything else that really makes sense, unless you want to take it on yourself to ask the person not to do that, but I think the mods can handle that. We can track it, too, so that we're not excessively bugging people who do this only once or twice and we only address it if it becomes a pattern. $\endgroup$
    – David Z
    Apr 13 '20 at 20:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ So you accepted an answer just telling you what you wanted to hear rather than an answer actually telling you how you should actually use the site and understand its policies and procedures? $\endgroup$ Apr 14 '20 at 13:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @annav When you've voted to close questions in the past (say, using the non-mainstream reason), was your thought process along the lines of "this question should be closed because answers would be harmful" or more along the lines of "well, if somebody is writing a harmful non-mainstream rant to answer this question, they should still have ten minutes to post it"? $\endgroup$ Apr 15 '20 at 15:41
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Nat If the goal were to "facilitate knowledge" without any constraints, then PSE would essentially become a HW help site fairly quickly. Now, I love helping people with HW, but this site is not the place for that. Many users are under the idea that if it is closed on PSE then it must mean those who voted to close the question see no value in the question, and that just isn't true. The specific policies are in place for a reason, and allowing leniency in certain cases for users who want to post answers on questions that do not fit the policies of PSE essentially makes the policies pointless. $\endgroup$ Apr 15 '20 at 19:53
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @annav I am asking you to consider the implications of the feature you're proposing beyond the narrow experience you've just had. Here's two easily foreseeable effects with a higher incidence rate: (i) if a new user is providing a bad answer to a bad homework question, they get prompted that the question is about to close, so they post a half-finished answer that's even worse than they would have otherwise, and the site is worse for it. (ii) Ditto with a non-mainstream rant to a non-mainstream question, except now the answerer feels threatened by the site and gets combative. $\endgroup$ Apr 15 '20 at 21:06
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Are those widespread problems really worth causing just to save you, and a handful of users who occasionally have your problem from today, the inconvenience of having to come to meta and argue that the question they wanted to answer was wrongly closed? $\endgroup$ Apr 15 '20 at 21:08
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ It seems you've missed basically all the points I've made, or you just don't want to consider them. It's a pretty selfish standpoint if you ask me, but that's your prerogative. $\endgroup$ Apr 16 '20 at 7:45
8
$\begingroup$

I really think there is no need to do this. There are essentially three cases here:

  1. You agree the question should be closed, and it's closed as duplicate. You should just answer the duplicate. If your answer fits the closed question but not the duplicate, then you apparently do not agree the question should be closed, go to case 3.

  2. You agree the question should be closed, and it's closed for any other reason. You just shouldn't have tried to answer it in the first place. The reason we close question is to prevent them from being answered, because for one reason or another we do not wish to encourage more of these questions. If you really want to answer this question and think it would be good to have the answer to it on your site, then, again, you apparently do not agree it should be closed. Go to case 3.

  3. You do not agree the question should be closed. Just vote to reopen.

In neither case is there any substantial benefit offered by allowing answers after closure that I could see. Either you agree the question should be closed and not answer it, or you should vote to reopen it and answer it after it gets reopened. If it stays close because no other reviewers agree it should be reopened, well, that's the nature of the voting system, and it would defeat the purpose of being able to close questions by vote if then individual dissenters could just choose to ignore the closure.

$\endgroup$
6
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I am not asking to have answers after closure, I am asking for some respect to somebody who has spent some time answering a question by delaying by 10 minutes the closure to give warning. The "after" is only 10 minutes from an arbitrary time 0 dependent on what time the moderator woke up.! $\endgroup$
    – anna v
    Apr 12 '20 at 10:56
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @annav Allowing answers for 10 minutes after closure isn't much different functionally from delaying the closure 10 minutes. I don't see how these answers wouldn't apply regardless. $\endgroup$
    – JMac
    Apr 12 '20 at 14:20
  • $\begingroup$ @JMac Maybe it is my greek to english. I am asking not to show the closure on the question until ten minutes have passed from the decision of the moderator to close. $\endgroup$
    – anna v
    Apr 12 '20 at 15:39
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @annav Closing isn't just a moderator decision. It's often done by the members with the closure privilege. Do you want this rule just for single vote closures from moderators/gold badge users? You're talking about just not showing the closure, you're talking about having the system act as if it's practically not closed for 10 minutes, because people could still answer. $\endgroup$
    – JMac
    Apr 12 '20 at 16:06
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @JMac Not open for everybody, just for drafts in progress. If the program can find me to say"no more asnwers accepted" it "kmows" there is an answer in progress. $\endgroup$
    – anna v
    Apr 12 '20 at 16:11
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @annav Then I would say this answer does a good job explaining why that isn't really a good system. $\endgroup$
    – JMac
    Apr 12 '20 at 16:13

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .