2
$\begingroup$

I have searched meta questions, but I find nothing about what is necessary to do to have the yellow This question may already have an answer here text removed from one's post.

It has appeared at the top of this recent question of mine with a link to an answer, which I have studied and understood, to a question, which is also mine (notwithstanding the fact that I am not a teenage student, but an adult worker wishing to study physics and mathematics just for love of these sciences, I am not so old as to forget a question I asked one month ago), which is blatantly different from my new question, as it is clear from the very title, although both relates to the derivation of Ampère's law from the Biot-Savart one, the older question in the case of a linear distribution of current, and the newer in the case of a tridimensional distribution of current.

If it were possible to generalise a proof for the case of the linear distribution to the case of the tridimensional distribution, such a generalisation should be proved, and could even constitute an answer, but, unless such a generalisation is produced, I wonder how can my new question be considered a duplicate...

I have tried to contact the moderators by flagging my question and explaining the issue, but I suspect that something has not worked, since I honestly do not think that a moderator, or any other person, having fully read the two posts or even only their titles, would ever think that the two posts are duplicate.

The issue constitutes a problem for me because I have even been told in a comment that the words I had added at the top of my post (which were This question focusses on the tridimensional distribution of current, different from the case discussed in another post of mine, whose answer relates to a linear distribution where B(x) = [...] is a line integral. I wrote it from the very beginning - and it also is definitely clear even from the very title - but it did not prevent the appearing of a "duplicate" message above) were a distraction keeping answerers away, but I frankly have to admit that I fear that the This question may already have an answer here warning may keep potential answerer away even more than the text I had written before.

Thank you for any answer.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Sorry, I don't see any such [This question may already have an answer here] message above your post. See here for a screenshot. $\endgroup$ – Danu Feb 8 '16 at 19:14
  • $\begingroup$ @Danu Thank you so much! ACuriousOne's answer explains why... $\endgroup$ – Self-teaching worker Feb 8 '16 at 19:33
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Self-teachingDavide: ACuriousMind, I suppose. $\endgroup$ – user36790 Feb 8 '16 at 20:15
  • $\begingroup$ @user36790 Yes. Two quite active users with two similar names... :-D $\endgroup$ – Self-teaching worker Feb 8 '16 at 20:30
6
$\begingroup$

No one except you can see that banner, so it will not "deter potential answerers". It is a message designed to streamline the duplicate close vote procedure, and give askers the opportunity to shorten the process if they agree with the vote, and force them to make their question more precise if they don't.

Your edit is not supposed to become an explicit argument for why your question should not be closed as duplicate, rather, the edit should focus on stressing the aspects of the question that are different, and contrasting it with the duplicate to make clear why the duplicate does not solve your problem. In particular, do not explicitly reference "duplicate votes" in the edit or use "Edit:" to mark it - a post is supposed to stand on its own, without knowledge of its history.

For more information on this comparatively recent feature see this meta.SE post.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I believed that it was visible by anybody... I heartily thank you! $\endgroup$ – Self-teaching worker Feb 8 '16 at 19:28

You must log in to answer this question.

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