-8
$\begingroup$

This is my $3^{rd}$ question being closed.

I don't know what "concepts" are any more! The basic concepts are available just about on any site and if one is not good at them then they should mostly revise their texts/notes, etc., but what mostly the issue is their application that is hard and one needs help in. The basics of Newtonian physics are its three laws. Is it really the case one won't ever get stuck after reading and understanding them? I don't think so.

Just marking every question as a "homework" question and then judging the users from that lens is utterly distasteful. None of my questions are homework questions per se and when someone responds while saying that "they expect you to do it this way", I'm asking myself who are "they" (and neither is anybody expecting anything) and though many questions come here might have that as their origin, not in my case and each case really must be looked at that way and trying to not err on the closing side, but the opposite.

I'm new here and in all the closed $3$ questions I've been pestered that my questions are not conceptual. Why have the questions been asked to be shaped according to the answers? It's really topsy-turvy and shouldn't be how the things should be.

My $3$ questions are related. First, I asked while mentioning my working related to it and where I was struggling. It was closed. Then I asked it as an open-ended question, so no one had to really bother with my working which I was anyway mentioning without being the focus (but that's how not it was being seen). Lastly, my recent post I added after I received an answer on another SE site and in that I was unable to understand something from a physics' perspective, but again it was closed!

If someone is not in the mood of helping, kindly don't spend your time instead of some other recreational activity than to in review queues; it's really not adding value. It's just too much curation, imho. Probably the view has shifted from instead of looking for dirt to now establishing some gold-standard which is too far and counterproductive from what the actual intention must be.

If you still think I'm wrong, kindly just tell me how to correct at all? And also if you think I came out harsh in the above, I was really not meaning to. If you think all the $3$ posts were correct to be closed or that the post can't be corrected and is simply irrelevant that would be fine as an answer too as I'll get the takeaway from the site and might rarely post anything which if I feel is really "conceptual" (and trivial).

It's just that there are a thousand users here and many I feel might be interested in helping users like me and even find the question itself interesting, but some users are too keen on doing a service to them which I think is a disservice or over-service at least.

Also, considering the following which is present in one of the links that is now above my question for which it got closed is:

Enter image description here

And that is my case, but feel free to just trying your best to trying to paint or prove that that's not the case. It would have been much better and constructive that even if that's the case if not 100% but 60% and so allowing and rather having a discussion on that!

Edit:
Pleased to inform that the post is now opened. Kindly feel free to try and take a jab at it. It's really is mind-boggling. Special thanks to Jim, David Bailey, Jacopo Tissino, Kshitij Kumar and also thanks to all those who pay heed to my concerns. And last but not the least, thanks (and congrats) to PSE. :)

$\endgroup$
7
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I can feel for you. All I have seen is that dumb questions like what is force, what is energy, what is wormhole garner lots of upvotes. This site requires that OP provides his own understanding, his own research, his motivation and other similar prerequisites. However most of thos questions are blunt as hell, and they get top attention. Only purpose of this site is to provide cheesy answers to cheesy questions which can appear at front of google search, while actual puzzles are disregarded as homework. $\endgroup$
    – Kshitij Kumar
    Nov 24, 2022 at 17:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @KshitijKumar instead of replying to you I wrote an an answer post. $\endgroup$
    – InanimateBeing
    Nov 25, 2022 at 4:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @KshitijKumar using post scores as a metric for what the community judges is a good question is not a good idea due to the "Hot Network Question (HNQ) effect". Questions along the lines of what you describe are easier to parse for non-physicists, which lead to skewed vote distributions if/when it hits the HNQ list. $\endgroup$
    – Kyle Kanos
    Nov 25, 2022 at 12:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @KyleKanos The main issue is that I am not even greedy for geting 10 or 100 votes. I just need my doubts which are mostly conceptual in nature to be solved. However nowadays, any aaplication based question concerning some setup is disregarded as homework, even though I follow all the rules, see my latest questions for proof. $\endgroup$
    – Kshitij Kumar
    Nov 25, 2022 at 12:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Can you post the link to the other two versions of your question? I think it's worth reopening, but want to vote to reopen the proper question $\endgroup$
    – Jim
    Nov 25, 2022 at 14:22
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @KshitijKumar You're comparing your questions to highly-voted questions (which, from your description, sound like HNQ). Try comparing your questions to other homework questions, both opened & closed. $\endgroup$
    – Kyle Kanos
    Nov 25, 2022 at 14:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Just to weigh in here, for everyone else, I think the linked question is worth reopening. I am not going to address whether or not the community is too gung-ho about closing as homework-based. There is evidence both for and against that. However, In the way that the linked question is phrased, it is certainly not something I think should be closed as homework-like and I voted to reopen it (with my reasoning provided in that post). That said, this current meta post covers a topic that has been done to death. I think it is dangerously close to being a duplicate of many others $\endgroup$
    – Jim
    Nov 25, 2022 at 14:33

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
13
$\begingroup$

Why not take a deep breath here.

You have been member for all of three days, whereas the site has been around for 11+ years, yet you are comfortable in declaring that it "shouldn't how the things should be." and there are too many closures.

Have you considered an alternative scenario whereby people value the site precisely because "things are the way they are"?

Part of the difficulty with many new users is they see the purpose of the site as one where their specific questions are answered. Yet the purpose of the site is precisely NOT that: we strive instead to answer questions that are of interest to users beyond the original poster, i.e. to provide value to the site rather than merely to the OP.

I will admit that your specific question is not without conceptual interest but I respect the opinion of those who thought it was a homework-like or "do my work" question, especially as your two previous attempts with posting this question resulted in closure. I certainly do not agree with your statement that there is too much closing on this site.

A constructive approach to re-opening any closed question after it is closed the first time is not to repost it without improvements but instead to edit it and try to resolve the issue. It is not easy and it takes time to write good questions, and honestly after 3 helpings of the same question over slightly more than 48hrs it's difficult to believe you took time to write a good question or make useful edits. If you are in a rush, don't blame others for closing your question quickly: this is not an answering service.

In your case, you could consider digesting the answer from MSE, making your own graphs and try isolate from the graphs the origin of the disputed $\vert v_1-v_2\vert$ factor. Does this factor make sense if both velocities are the same? How would you see this graphically? You can always use chat to discuss how to best clarify your post.

$\endgroup$
5
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I already told that I'm a new member and the statement "things are the way they are" might not be true as success' graph could be one that looks like a mountain and we are sliding down (or could it be like $\sqrt x$ but doesn't seem so to me). I tried editing my questions too but there's a limit to which one can and I certainly couldn't further without losing what I want to ask. I tried analysing the graphs and that didn't solve but confirm my doubt . And 48 hours to write a "good" question is still isn't enough! $\endgroup$
    – InanimateBeing
    Oct 13, 2022 at 2:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ [contd] Finally, "to provide value to the site rather than merely to the OP": to which I'm saying that it's becoming almost like an obsession as when I ask a question, I'm not in the least trying to get some assignment done or anything like that. Instead I'm genuinely confused as to how maths says something that I couldn't verify using physics and despite that it's closed. So, this reflects that something is indeed wrong. Once again, I myself spend enough time before posting anything here which obviously is unaccounted for or assumed that that's not the case. $\endgroup$
    – InanimateBeing
    Oct 13, 2022 at 2:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @InanimateBeing well your profile says you've been a member for 4 days now. It is of course quite possible that you have been lurking, but if this is the case you would have recognized that your post was close to the edge. If indeed you spent enough time working on this before posting, then I'm sorry to say it's not reflected in your post and so please consider asking for advice by going to the PSE chat room. $\endgroup$
    – ZeroTheHero
    Oct 13, 2022 at 13:12
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ My point is: to me at least the question is not without conceptual interest and it's worth investing time to improve it. $\endgroup$
    – ZeroTheHero
    Oct 13, 2022 at 13:17
  • $\begingroup$ "MSE" = Mathematics, not Meta Stack Exchange (most likely) $\endgroup$
    – Peter Mortensen
    Nov 25, 2022 at 12:24
-11
$\begingroup$

Users here don't want to "brain-storm". They simply want to see questions that they can solve "easily" without taking any pains. "What is momentum?" or "What is the difference between momentum and kinetic energy?" - "Oh my! such a pitiful confusion, let me get my pillow, lie on the sofa and spread my legs... yup, so here the solution..." - while this might not be the case at all but that's how things came across to me.

It is indeed much more uncomfortable (relatively) when someone asks an application (which is not strictly that either in my case, but users here don't want to see the "concepts" in it) based question which seems in "your" opinion is devoid of any concepts. In my case, for example, the working I got from a user on MSE was all apparently correct but the physics wasn't fitting well. This should have been a really interesting problem here but I was disappointed to know the reality.

The pic attached in the question (in the OP's question above) says exactly that but NO! Once some 2 or 3 users have decided that the post must be closed, like sheep, all huddle together and support that decision in one voice. Note that it's not how your question is that matters, in the end, it is that:

  1. whether you have spent enough time. (Minimum 24 hours just to frame a question though 48 would be apt)
  2. whether site is having a tough time.
  3. whether the user who posted the question has been around particularly on PSE (not on any other related site as we our just something else). Of course, we safely assume you never visited this site ever before for any post whatsoever.
  4. whether the question cries of having some confusion in a "concept" and that too directly (indirectly is just too much pain to figure out).

Reviewers here don't have the attitude to search for which questions could be saved but the exact opposite.

Why did you (that is, me) come here again? Well I got a comment from a user which again lead me to ponder over this issue so ya in all likelihood this is not really worth it but anyways, most likely the last time.

Well, before we feel to start some discussion, why not take a deep breath here.

$\endgroup$
13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ physics.stackexchange.com/questions/535/…, physics.stackexchange.com/questions/273032/…, and tons of other seemingly dumb questions asking bluntly for answers. I would say physics stack exchange was better back then, with less moderation, giving free autonomy for asker to ask questions. Now it is just becoming bad day by day. Ah homework,? close it damn it. $\endgroup$
    – Kshitij Kumar
    Nov 25, 2022 at 6:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @KshitijKumar that first link XD. Thank you for the valuable inputs. It's laughable when a user said "the site has been around for 11+ years" as if things can't be downhill still. They just wanna dope themselves in nostalgia to the detriment of the site. Though sympathize with me at your own peril. Thanks to PSE, my respect for MSE needless to say, has increased tremendously, as you pointed out correctly. $\endgroup$
    – InanimateBeing
    Nov 25, 2022 at 6:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ welcome, yeah MSE is far far better than physics or chemistry ones. They believe in solving questions/puzzles not pulling out drama of homework or some sorts. $\endgroup$
    – Kshitij Kumar
    Nov 25, 2022 at 6:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "MSE" = Mathematics, not Meta Stack Exchange (most likely) $\endgroup$
    – Peter Mortensen
    Nov 25, 2022 at 12:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Mathematics is almost exclusively a homework site. $\endgroup$
    – Peter Mortensen
    Nov 25, 2022 at 12:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @PeterMortensen Still they are thriving way better. Their quality of questions haven't degraded. Look chemistry which has even stricter moderation, and they are hardly thriving. I really don't know what is in minds of mods of this site. $\endgroup$
    – Kshitij Kumar
    Nov 25, 2022 at 12:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @PeterMortensen yes by MSE I mean, Mathematics for M. Whether MSE is homework (H.W.) site or not is NOT the point. I'm not pitching this site to become a H.W. solving site either (by the way MSE isn't this either). What I'm saying is that instead my question was misjudged as a homework question. And no one is ready to acknowledge that here (so forget any further steps/discussions). Everyone wants to simply ignore the pic I've attached in the question post. And even if there is no fault in question, I am supposed to edit to make/prove a mis-judge correct. Though thank you for the edit. :) $\endgroup$
    – InanimateBeing
    Nov 25, 2022 at 13:18
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ this is just a rant... $\endgroup$
    – ZeroTheHero
    Nov 25, 2022 at 16:17
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @KshitijKumar PSE works very well thank you; if you are more comfortable asking your question on MSE then go ahead. $\endgroup$
    – ZeroTheHero
    Nov 25, 2022 at 16:19
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @InanimateBeing after this is said and done, you fixed your question and it was reopened. To be clear, you did not fix it to my taste and I would not have voted to reopen, but I had not voted to close initially so I will go with the current consensus. so instead of ranting about this or that, why not be constructive and edit your post when they are closed. $\endgroup$
    – ZeroTheHero
    Nov 25, 2022 at 23:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @ZeroTheHero I don't want to debate who's ranting. "fixed your question and it was reopened" unless you're historian you shouldn't misguide future un-informed users by presenting twisted facts unless you're uninformed yourself. Why not be constructive and try to tackle the re-opened problem or simply sit back, wait and watch the problem be solved (maybe) if they can't. When all is said and done, why not be constructive and let the issue here close by not unnecessarily giving an un-informed lecture. FYI post reopened and then got (actually) fixed. Though you're still missing the larger picture. $\endgroup$
    – InanimateBeing
    Nov 26, 2022 at 4:11
  • $\begingroup$ @InanimateBeing with due respect the above is just a word salad. My point is clear: you could have fixed this long ago. I already informed you that you question was “not without conceptual” interest so if you feel this is misguided or unformed I’m not sure what to say. AFAIC, your question is reopened (later than sooner) and it’s all that matters. $\endgroup$
    – ZeroTheHero
    Nov 26, 2022 at 4:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @ZeroTheHero thank you. I respect your opinion(s) too. But the thing is despite being “not without conceptual interest” it was still not clearing on those grounds. Grammatical errors as you last saw came in the last edit by some user which also went un-noticed/un-realized by me. Before that it was exactly the same as it is now! To confirm, look at edit 3 and edit 5, they're both (essentially) the same! Despite that edit 3 was rejected! So that was wrong/mis-judged. (You're talking about edit 4). Hope we now understand each other. $\endgroup$
    – InanimateBeing
    Nov 26, 2022 at 6:59

You must log in to answer this question.

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