One of my questions from October 16, 2019, Why is the ångström not a metric unit? And why is the ångström spelled with the Swedish/Finnish letters "å" and "ö"? has got useful answers. However, my question is downvoted to -6. I cannot understand why my question has got downvotes.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Do not be surprised if your original question gets additional downvotes now that you have drawn attention to it. In my opinion, it doesn’t have anything to do with physics and is off-topic, although I did not downvote it. $\endgroup$ – G. Smith Nov 28 '20 at 21:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Also, the original question seems to lack prior research, such as reading what Wikipedia has to say about that unit. $\endgroup$ – G. Smith Nov 28 '20 at 21:54
  • $\begingroup$ @G. Smith Why do you think my question is off-topic? I asked a question about a unit. $\endgroup$ – Arunabh Bhattacharya Nov 28 '20 at 22:02
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Units are used in all fields of science and engineering, not just in physics. And they reflect arbitrary human choices, not laws of physics. Finally, the angstrom is not always spelled in the Swedish way (although it seems more polite to do so), so your question makes a false assumption. $\endgroup$ – G. Smith Nov 28 '20 at 22:12
  • $\begingroup$ @G.Smith If you think a post is off topic then you should vote to close it as such. $\endgroup$ – BioPhysicist Nov 29 '20 at 5:06
  • $\begingroup$ This SEDE query shows all the reviews on your posts, network-wide. It helps a lot to understand, what was the problem of the community with your posts in general, and with this specific one (now). $\endgroup$ – peterh - Reinstate Monica Nov 29 '20 at 15:13
  • $\begingroup$ Btw, Ängstrom looks for me coming from some North European language, most likely Norway, they have these characters. Practically all the languages have such characters, some of them have a lot, except Englsh. Wikipedia can say the exact details. Using it wihout punctuation is bad, but comprehensible in written communication, but it can make your pronouncation incomprehensble (they sound entirely different vowels for native speakers). $\endgroup$ – peterh - Reinstate Monica Nov 29 '20 at 15:19
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ It's really not appropriate to change the question after it already has answers. That invalidates those answers. $\endgroup$ – JMac Dec 8 '20 at 13:33
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I've rolled back your edit, since there was already an answer to the question in its previous form. If you have a different question, ask a new one. I suspect you would need to exercise some considerable skill in writing your new question for it to be well-received by the community, since it would be your third in ten days on the same topic. $\endgroup$ – rob Dec 8 '20 at 13:58

I did not see your question until now, but it is easy to see why it was downvoted.

  • The part about why is it spelt that way is a question about language, not physics. It could even be opinion based. So that's two possible ways that part is off-topic.

  • Why is it not a metric unit (in fact it is) is a question only the people who make decisions on the relevant committee could answer. Again it's likely opinion based.

  • You could have done no real prior research as Wikipedia's page on that unit states it is part of the metric system of units and the page on the metric system also lists it. That unit is, however not part of the SI system of units, so I suspect this is the route of confusion. The SI system is not the same as the metric system, although they are related.

  • Some members do not have enough reputation to vote to close a question as off-topic. That does not mean they'll just ignore questions they think are off-topic and it would not be unusual to find such members downvoting instead.

Note however that members on SE can downvote any question and are not required to state a reason or explain their actions. We expect them to act in good faith and that's all there is to it. I suspect some automated checks on the site monitor for patterns of voting that could be attacks by one person on another, but I do not know that for certain. It is polite to either comment a reason for downvoting or vote up an existing comment that already explains your reason, but it is not required.

It is quite common for questions to get answers (which are themselves voted up) and yet the original question is closed or downvoted heavily. Getting an answer means the question interests people, but some people being interested does not mean it is on-topic or cannot be even more disliked by a lot of people too. This is the nature of forums.

At the end of the day, you can politely ask for people to explain their downvotes, but you cannot force the issue and it really does happen us all from time to time.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ And why has this meta question been downvoted? $\endgroup$ – Arunabh Bhattacharya Nov 29 '20 at 3:09
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @ArunabhBhattacharya Probably because either users think the main question deserves a down vote or users think this isn't a good meta post. $\endgroup$ – BioPhysicist Nov 29 '20 at 3:16
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Re "This is the nature of forums.": But this is not a forum. $\endgroup$ – Peter Mortensen Nov 29 '20 at 4:07
  • $\begingroup$ @ArunabhBhattacharya because people really don't like your original and so are further expressing their anger here. And because people tend not to play nice on the internet. $\endgroup$ – Aqualone Nov 29 '20 at 4:39
  • $\begingroup$ @BioPhysicist if they dislike the main question, they should downvote the main question. And I don't see why THIS POST isn't a good meta post (notwithstanding how bad the original question might have been) $\endgroup$ – Aqualone Nov 29 '20 at 4:41
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Aqualone To be fair down votes aren't necessarily "not playing nice". Down votes on meta don't even count against users. Typically down votes on meta express disagreement. e.g. the post suggests that the question on the main site shouldn't have been down voted, but users disagree with this, so they down vote the meta post. I don't think down voting this meta post is mean nor unreasonable. $\endgroup$ – BioPhysicist Nov 29 '20 at 5:02
  • $\begingroup$ And now why has my question got a notice saying "Update the question so it focuses on one problem only."? $\endgroup$ – Arunabh Bhattacharya Dec 4 '20 at 16:37
  • $\begingroup$ @ArunabhBhattacharya The post was voted closed for the reason of "needs more focus". I was one of the users who voted to close for this reason, and I selected it because you are asking about two things. 1) The "metric status" of the Angstrom, and 2) about the specific spelling. $\endgroup$ – BioPhysicist Dec 4 '20 at 16:42
  • $\begingroup$ And what is the meaning of the comment "You must include in your question your full appreciation of the size/diameter of a Hydrogen atom."? $\endgroup$ – Arunabh Bhattacharya Dec 4 '20 at 17:27
  • $\begingroup$ @ArunabhBhattacharya I was not the user who made that comment. You can reply to that user there though by adding @CosmasZachos to your comment to ask what they mean. $\endgroup$ – BioPhysicist Dec 4 '20 at 17:28
  • $\begingroup$ But can other users understand that comment? $\endgroup$ – Arunabh Bhattacharya Dec 4 '20 at 17:44
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @ArunabhBhattacharya The original question goes back to 2019 so I am honestly baffled why you raised this now (late 2020) and why you are not willing to accept the many explanations made to you. This is honestly starting to look like an obsession and I'd suggest you move on from this minor issue to more constructive things. $\endgroup$ – StephenG Dec 4 '20 at 17:45
  • $\begingroup$ Now why has this meta question been closed as opinion based? $\endgroup$ – Arunabh Bhattacharya Dec 4 '20 at 20:27
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @ArunabhBhattacharya Because the reason you got down votes on the main question involves the opinions of the users who down voted it, and any answer to this meta post will be based on the opinion of why you got those down votes. There is no single subjective reason as to why your main question got down votes; users can only speculate. $\endgroup$ – BioPhysicist Dec 4 '20 at 21:17

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