4
$\begingroup$

My question has been closed with the comment that it is a "homework-like" or "check my work" question. I have read the posts recommended by the reviewers to address the issues and edited the question several times. However, the question remains closed with the only comment being "Original close reason(s) were not resolved." Without specific pointers to which parts of the question violate the policy it is very difficult to fix the violations.

But there seems to be no mechanism to request information on which parts of the question specifically violate the policy. Editing the question blindly, with only more comments like "Original close reason(s) were not resolved." in the offing, feels like a find-me-a-rock quest. Can anyone please help?

$\endgroup$
5
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Asking here is the correct place to get feedback you're missing. However, it would be good if you actually linked to the question you're talking about so we can actually provide more specific feedback. Assuming you're talking about your most recent question, the last reopen review concluded with 3 votes for closure vs. 2 votes to reopen. $\endgroup$
    – ACuriousMind Mod
    Feb 2 at 15:04
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Also, please note that "moderator" denotes a very small subset of users with unilateral moderation powers; the users who interacted with your question so far are not moderators, just users with enough reputation to be able to vote to open/close questions. $\endgroup$
    – ACuriousMind Mod
    Feb 2 at 15:08
  • $\begingroup$ @ACuriousMind Ah, i didn't realize this was the place. I thought meta was for general questions about stackexchange design/policy. I linked the closed question in the post. $\endgroup$
    – Daniel Genin
    Feb 2 at 15:28
  • $\begingroup$ It is not keeping to form ("I will be grateful for any suggestions/insights you may have."). There isn't a question in it. "Q" in Q&A is "question". This is not a forum. Call to action is implied by posting. $\endgroup$
    – Peter Mortensen
    Feb 2 at 15:38
  • $\begingroup$ @PeterMortensen Fair enough, point taken. However, if that was the reason for the the question being closed it would have saved everyone involved a lot of time if it was stated explicitly. $\endgroup$
    – Daniel Genin
    Feb 2 at 17:36

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2
$\begingroup$

Just to add to the main concern, that physics.meta.SE is the right place to get feedback on what constitutes policy violations:

I was one of the reviewers who voted to keep your question closed (though I did not originally vote for it to be closed). One thing that stands out is the fact that there does not appear to be a clear question in your original post. At least not in a form that is considered acceptable. It would appear that after trying to solve a physics problem, you went over what you did then asked members to help you identify where you went wrong and what caused inconsistent results.

According to the policy of PSE, this is could be interpreted as a check-my-work question type, and is therefore off-topic. When a question is of the "check-my-work" form, the appropriate close vote reason falls under the singular category Homework-like questions and check-my-work questions. Though what may have caused your initial confusion as to why the question was closed was your thinking that it was more along the lines of "this is not homework". And most would agree it is not homework, but agree it is "check-my-work".

I suppose that if there was a separate close reason (and I certainly am not suggesting the need for such) specifically for "check-my-work" type questions, then perhaps you would not be wondering why, since this seems more specific to the close reason. In any case, I would guess that if you sufficiently clarify what your actual question is, that might be enough to get the question reopened, and increases the likelihood of a good answer.

$\endgroup$
9
  • $\begingroup$ On the suggestion for a separate close reason: SE sites are limited by the SE software to at most three site-specific closure reasons, and we currently have all three slots filled (homework-and-exercises & check-my-work, non-mainstream, engineering), so we could not currently split off check-my-work as an individual close reason even if we wanted to. $\endgroup$
    – ACuriousMind Mod
    Feb 4 at 0:45
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, though I was not suggesting the creation of a separate close reason at all. I was merely pointing out the effect if such a thing existed. Completely hypothetical, though I see how one may construe this implication, so made an edit. Cheers and thanks again. $\endgroup$
    – joseph h
    Feb 4 at 0:52
  • $\begingroup$ @joseph Would the question have been accepted if it was worded as: here is a physical phenomenon I observed, here is the model for the system I developed, why do the model results not match the observations? $\endgroup$
    – Daniel Genin
    Feb 5 at 18:43
  • $\begingroup$ @DanielGenin that's still check-my-work. $\endgroup$
    – ZeroTheHero
    Feb 5 at 20:47
  • $\begingroup$ @DanielGenin Hi Daniel. I'm guessing that if you worded it that way, it would be found to be "check-my-work" again, since you are asking to check-my-work (some voters may even argue it's of the "lack details or clarity" or "needs focus" type). The fact is that there is no conceptual question being asked. For example, "is it correct to say that the total kinetic energy is the sum of the ball's center of mass kinetic energy of rolling, plus the velocity of the point of contact between the ball and trough wall, plus the rotational kinetic energy?" <continued next comment> $\endgroup$
    – joseph h
    Feb 5 at 20:50
  • $\begingroup$ @DanielGenin <continued> If you went over your work again, could you find such a conceptual question? Let me know and I'll try to help you get a good answer. Cheers. $\endgroup$
    – joseph h
    Feb 5 at 20:51
  • $\begingroup$ @josephh I think you are right, there's no way for me to formulate a conceptual question. I do not understand the source of the discrepancy enough to ask such a question. Thank you for the clarification. $\endgroup$
    – Daniel Genin
    Feb 5 at 23:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Unexpectedly, the question has been reopened. Not that i'm complaining:) $\endgroup$
    – Daniel Genin
    Feb 6 at 0:37
  • $\begingroup$ @DanielGenin Excellent. good luck with it. Cheers. $\endgroup$
    – joseph h
    Feb 6 at 0:52

You must log in to answer this question.

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