6
$\begingroup$

In my opinion (and others said so in the corresponding comments too) this question, asking about some difficulties that occur in investigating the string theory landscape (such as the measurement problem for example) has wrongly been closed. It asks about a valid topic in mainstream theoretical physics, which is actively investigated by esteemed physicists. The question adresses several points that highlight difficulties in investigating the string theory landscape. However, these points are so closely related that the whole set can easily be addressed by a single answer. These subquestions just give the details the OP is interested in and they can easily be adressed by a single coherent answer. The mere existance of such closely related subquestions in a post should not be a reason to close. I have seen tons of questions which eplained the topic they are interested in by closely related subquestions, and there was (rightly so) no need to close them; they got nice upvoted answers, etc

So, as David Zaslavsky suggested in the comments to clarify the issue on meta, my question here is:

Can this question (after improvements if needed?) be reopened?

$\endgroup$

closed as too localized by Sklivvz, Manishearth Dec 24 '12 at 19:56

This question is unlikely to help any future visitors; it is only relevant to a small geographic area, a specific moment in time, or an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet. For help making this question more broadly applicable, visit the help center. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • $\begingroup$ To me, it seems OK after the edits. Its possible NC nature is still debatable, let's see what meta says. $\endgroup$ – Manishearth Dec 24 '12 at 12:01
5
$\begingroup$

I've voted for a re-open, because I think it is a mainstream cosmology topic (regardless of people's opinion on this sort of field in cosmology). However I agree that there are too many questions embedded. I would just stop at the first one.

Edit: Maybe some subset of the others could be raised as separate questions.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks Twistor, so maybe it would be best if you could do the edit? I probably could reaske the other questions contained therein after thinking about it, but you are certainly more competent (than me) in doing this too. BTW have a nice holiday :-) $\endgroup$ – Dilaton Dec 24 '12 at 11:11
  • $\begingroup$ We should reopen once it's fixed and not vice-versa though. The question was open before and was not being fixed. $\endgroup$ – Sklivvz Dec 24 '12 at 11:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I've never done this before ... - so I can edit the question, and leave it to see what people decide? $\endgroup$ – twistor59 Dec 24 '12 at 11:41
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ OK I did a simple edit. Its fate now rests in the hands of the gods... :-) Have a great holiday @Dilaton and everybody else $\endgroup$ – twistor59 Dec 24 '12 at 11:48
2
$\begingroup$

First of all, allow me to remind you that usually in "reopening requests" it is asked that who posts the question should explain the reasoning why the question must be reopened. I mean, bring forth your arguments as to why it should be reopened (you have to convince the mods and the community after all and using arguments is your best bet). Your request will have more chances to be successful if you provide those.

Now, I don't really understand the topic of the question but it's clear, also considering the close reason, that it's certainly on topic for the site. So that's not the problem. But thanks to my moderator experience I can see at least a major one with the question: it has too many questions. There are 9 in there.

This is a problem because it makes the question too broad to be answered. According to the standard FAQ:

Your questions should be reasonably scoped. If you can imagine an entire book that answers your question, you’re asking too much.

And in my opinion this is the problem with the question. The question-points might be legit and all, but the question should be scoped. Also consider the answerers: In order to fully address the question, you have to answer 9 points completely.

The answerers won't answer all of them. You'll have users focusing on some points, others focusing on other points, and most of the users ignoring the rest.

Your question need to be scoped, so who answers will address any point of the question. While now it almost looks like a questionnaire.

When this happens in my sites, I usually suggest to split the question in multiple parts, grouping the questions that are related. So for example, 2/3 questions are highly related? Then ask a new question with those. If the questions are consequent, so that one question is based on the answer of the previous one, then those should better be asked in that order.

I can't answer why it was closed as Not Constructive, but I hope this helps. :)

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Yes it should be reopened, it is a valid question.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Just for future reference, an answer like this really isn't useful. It just states an opinion without giving any reasoning whatsoever. This isn't a poll question, you know ;-) $\endgroup$ – David Z Dec 24 '12 at 16:11
  • $\begingroup$ Ok @DavidZaslavsky, I misunderstood something since I thought I should state the reasons for reopen in the question and the answers can then be just a yes/no poll to count the votes... But now I see what you mean ... Thanks for reopening and merry Christmas :-) $\endgroup$ – Dilaton Dec 24 '12 at 17:27
0
$\begingroup$

Closure is just a stop gap to get a question fixed, it's not a way to prevent a question from happening. In fact, it's still there, and we are debating it!

Is the question salvageable? Yes, by all means!

  • by restricting it to the parts which are TP and not mere maths or philosophy
  • by reducing the scope to a reasonable size, one or two not overly broad questions

Why did I vote to close and flag in the first place?

  • The question had many parts but a very, very partial, completely mathematical answer. It was clearly not working on this site.
  • When a user asks so many questions it's really hard to restrict by editing if you are not the one asking the questions, so I couldn't just fix it myself!
  • Closure prevents further random answers while we debate and fix the question. If we decide to fix we will re-open with a better question. If we decide not to fix, we will eventually delete, but closure is not deletion.

In other words, let's debate how to improve the question and do it. There is no censorship or let alone some risible plan to shut down all TP questions (seriously?).


Question has now been edited and is valid. Whilst it's still to wishy-washy for my taste, I don't think it's a valid reason for closure so I've voted to reopen!

For future reference:

$\endgroup$

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