-6
$\begingroup$

Courtesy link: https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/q/441290/

That question above was closed as needing more focus after the question already had an answer. I had to edit the question so that it asks only one question. Then the question was reopened by a moderator and a regular user.

The same thing has happened to my last question here: What are the underlying concepts of the wavelength?. The question was closed as opinion/based when I posted the first meta question: On-topic question about wavelengths. Then the question was reopened after so many edits, and the question now has two answers. The question again has been closed no longer as opinion-based, but as off-topic with a notice saying:

Your question can be reopened if suitably edited to ask about the underlying concepts — please read the links above carefully to learn how.

However, since the question now has two answers, all future edits should still validate the existing answers.

What will be a plausible title and text that will still validate the existing answers?

NOTE: The difference between this meta question and the other one is that in this meta question, I am asking for a title and text that validates the existing answers.

$\endgroup$
10
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ The question already has two answers, one accepted by you ! What is the objective of reopening this ? It seems pointless. $\endgroup$
    – StephenG - Help Ukraine
    May 11 at 12:36
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ why exactly is this other link relevant? It's a different community so they presumably have a way of voting to reopen. $\endgroup$
    – ZeroTheHero
    May 11 at 13:54
  • $\begingroup$ @StephenG-HelpUkraine The question is mine. There should be a path to reopen the question for a future audience. $\endgroup$
    – Arunabh Bhattacharya
    May 11 at 16:58
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ I consider your question far too vague to be fixed. You've now asked three meta questions about this and it's long past time you let this go. $\endgroup$
    – StephenG - Help Ukraine
    May 11 at 17:37
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Does this answer your question? On-topic question about wavelengths $\endgroup$
    – Norbert Schuch
    May 11 at 17:49
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ That's your third meta question on the same post. How does it differ from the previous ones? $\endgroup$
    – Norbert Schuch
    May 11 at 17:49
  • $\begingroup$ @NorbertSchuch My usual ritual is to ask questions on a featured site. I asked that question on the day when the Physics site was the featured site, and the question must be preserved for future audiences. When I asked the first meta question, the question was closed and did not have any answer. The second meta question I asked after it reopened and had an answer. Now, this third meta question, I am posting after it has closed when it still has an existing answer, and my object here is to get a plausible title and text that validates the existing answers. $\endgroup$
    – Arunabh Bhattacharya
    May 11 at 20:28
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ sorry but with all due respect this is crazy: one does not edit a question to validate an existing answer… $\endgroup$
    – ZeroTheHero
    May 11 at 21:02
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ To be frank your stated purpose on the site seems simply an exercise in boosting your ego, not making a useful contribution to the site or even expanding your knowledge. I'd consider that abuse of the entire SE site, not just physics. $\endgroup$
    – StephenG - Help Ukraine
    May 11 at 22:14
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ The question about wavelengths is now so broad and vague that I’ve just downvoted it. $\endgroup$
    – Ghoster
    May 11 at 23:11

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
6
$\begingroup$

What will be a plausible title and text that will still validate the existing answers?

There is no guarantee that such verbiage exists.

Furthermore, repeatedly editing the post, currently at version 37, will probably alienate readers who might be sympathetic. For example, after your question was closed (for the second time) on May 8, it has been subject to six reopen reviews, during which it received eighteen “leave closed” votes and one “reopen” vote. Some of your “leave closed” voters participated in multiple reviews, and probably noticed that several reopen reviews were generated by trivial edits, like bouncing around between “wavelength and frequency,” “wavelength” or “frequency” alone, or sometimes “frequency formula.” The review queues are telling you that the types of changes you are making are not improving your question. Listen to them.

Posts which are edited too many times actually generate a flag for moderators to step in and make sure nothing strange is happening. I don’t know if that threshold is public knowledge or not, but it’s many fewer than thirty-seven edits. Remember that each edit bumps your question to the top of the home page, where it displaces a question by another user who said what they wanted in one go. That’s an inconsiderate way to use the site.

To my eye, the problem with your question is that it’s too broad: the answer occupies a healthy fraction of a chapter in many introductory books. You might mean something more specific, whose answer would be a better fit for our community, but you have not managed to clarify. You have, however, gotten two positively-scored answers for your trouble, and have indicated that one of those answers has solved your problem. That sounds like a successful question to me! The fake internet points only have the value you give them.

Some users whose asking histories have too many downvoted, deleted, or closed questions will be prevented from asking new questions until either (a) their question history is improved, by editing old questions so that they are upvoted or reopened, or (b) waiting for some unspecified period of time to ask a new question. The exact details of this algorithm are secret, but a question which is downvoted, closed, and deleted counts against you three times — we want our community to produce high-quality, lasting content. Sometimes a user will fixate on this advice and demand that their old questions be upvoted and reopened so that they can post their next question now. But that’s not how it works. Not every question has a home in our community.

If you are in this situation, use the time you cannot post to read the site. See what types of posts stay open and what types get closed, and try to frame your next question more like the left-open ones.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ To workshop question ideas and participate in a more free-form discussion, consider visiting Physics Chat. $\endgroup$
    – rob Mod
    May 12 at 4:14

You must log in to answer this question.

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