I do not like it my meta question, Why has my question from October 16, 2019 been downvoted?, has also been closed as opinion based because I asked a meta question about my own question. Why is my meta question closed?

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ So you want an opinion on why your previous Meta question was closed as asking for an opinion on why your question was closed? Kind of a Meta Meta question? The previous Meta question had an answer pointing out why it was opinion-based. $\endgroup$ – Jon Custer Dec 4 '20 at 21:43
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ It tells you why it was closed, it was because it was opinion based. Those questions aren't on topic... $\endgroup$ – JMac Dec 4 '20 at 22:43
  • $\begingroup$ I told you the reason on the other post. I'll copy what I said here in case you missed it. "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 5 '20 at 2:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Shouldn't this be tagged with "meta"? $\endgroup$ – Peter Mortensen Dec 6 '20 at 15:05
  • $\begingroup$ I have an idea! Do not ask on the meta, "why was it downvoted". Ask this: "How can I improve this question"! They mean nearly the same, but it will be far more welcomed! $\endgroup$ – peterh Dec 7 '20 at 23:38

Your meta question is actually not a question. It is a comment that you cannot understand why a main site question of yours was closed. As a result:

  1. I dunno how your non-question in meta can be answered,
  2. Even if we understand your meta post as a kind of question, it is not possible to answer it in any way except by formulating a speculative opinion on the reason why your main site question was closed.
  3. As an aside, my opinion is that asking for people to justify their VTC is bad form. It’s enough to understand that the question needs improvement, or that the answer is readily available (as is the case of your main site question relevant to this discussion).

Your question is not an opinion. On the metas it is widely accepted to start a question about a main site one. (Typically, OP wants to know the reasons of the down/close/delete votes. Or asks for a discussion about the revival.)

Voting up and down is free, thus up/down votes represent opinions (about your main site question). But, what is the typical opinion of the avid voters, that is imho enough objective to survive on a meta.

In my opinion, your meta question should have not been closed.

Your main site question might better match the History of Science & Math site ( https://hsm.stackexchange.com ). There a problem what I can see with it is that the answer is encyclopedic (first hit in any search engine, it is not an interesting question). But possibly the community will decide to remain.

  • 4
    $\begingroup$ "On the metas it is widely accepted to start a question about a main site one. (Typically, OP wants to know the reasons of the down/close/delete votes. Or asks for a discussion about the revival.)" Right, but these questions and discussions are still centered in policy. Not just "why are there down votes?" $\endgroup$ – BioPhysicist Dec 5 '20 at 23:08
  • $\begingroup$ Also this should be another indicator of why opinion based questions are not allowed, as users will just accept the answer that agrees with their opinion. $\endgroup$ – BioPhysicist Dec 7 '20 at 15:51
  • $\begingroup$ @BioPhysicist A meta site is a Q&A about the main site, making the "why was it downvoted" questions per definitionem on-topic. The accept means that the user found that answer the one which really solved his problem, no more and no less. $\endgroup$ – peterh Dec 7 '20 at 15:54
  • $\begingroup$ A post being about the main site doesn't make it on topic for meta any more than a question being about physics means it is on topic on the main site (many questions about physics still get closed on the main site). So your reasoning of "it is about the main site, so it must be on topic, so it cannot be opinion based" is flawed. Being about the main site is only a necessary condition, but it is not a sufficient one for being on topic. $\endgroup$ – BioPhysicist Dec 7 '20 at 15:57
  • $\begingroup$ @BioPhysicist "Why was it downvoted" questions are on-topic, you are free to disagree, as likely most of the avid meta users do - at least about this question - but these are still on-topic. My suggestion would be to help the OPs to improve, instead expelling them even from the meta. $\endgroup$ – peterh Dec 7 '20 at 16:00
  • $\begingroup$ The subject of a question does not determine whether or not it is on topic. Making another main site analogy, I am sure you could find examples of projectile motion questions that are on topic and others that are not. There is no way to justify "why was it downvoted" for being on or off topic: more information is needed. I agree, "why was this downvoted" can be on topic if the question is focused on site policy. $\endgroup$ – BioPhysicist Dec 7 '20 at 16:05
  • $\begingroup$ However, in this case the question is just "why was this down voted", and in this case all answers are speculation unless you can find all users who down voted and get them to explain their down votes. If you want to help the OP, then you should be helping them see how their question was subjective rather than just telling them what they want to hear. (Which is what I have been trying to do) $\endgroup$ – BioPhysicist Dec 7 '20 at 16:05
  • $\begingroup$ @BioPhysicist Up- and downvotes are subjective, we can vote anything to up or down for anything. But, why the community votes up- or down, this is already not so subjective - anybody can answer it knowing the site and the community well. Not allowing "why was my question voted down" topic on the meta is a hilarious invention - despite that most of such meta questions are being down/close/del-voted in practice - and I see no reason to discuss it any more. $\endgroup$ – peterh Dec 7 '20 at 16:41
  • $\begingroup$ @BioPhysicist (I think the root of the problem is the difference between enthusiast-level content and a pro information exchange. However, I have no problem with the second. I want it. I think even I could learn a lot on it. Not I invented the SE system, and not I invented that the SE (company) tries to unify alien content & communities to minimize the count of the sites on the network. I try to fight this idea as I only can, but I am only an user and they are the owner of the network.) $\endgroup$ – peterh Dec 7 '20 at 16:46
  • $\begingroup$ @BioPhysicist (Math has a separation of the pro and enthusiast content, there is a math.stackexchange.com and a mathoverflow.com , but even this required that some foundation pays for the pro site. And in practice, what now happens, that an avid deletionist brigade appeared on the MathSE some years ago and moved the MathSE to a MO direction. The company ignores the whole problem. My impression about the company decision-makers is that they might not even understand that it would be a problem.) $\endgroup$ – peterh Dec 7 '20 at 16:49

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