What does everyone mean by "insufficient research effort"?

Question

Lately I've noticed a lot of close votes, down votes, and comments to the effect of "this question is too low level" or "the answer is on the internet if you search for it" or "you should already know this." And those are just my attempt at rephrasing things in a more friendly way. This isn't from one user either, but rather from many (sometimes it seems like most) of the active reviewers on the site. Some recent examples:

• Is there a weak magnetic field, coming forth from particles with a weak charge?
• How are thermometers calibrated?
• Problem understanding energy of a electric field

What exactly are we trying to accomplish? I don't think this was ever satisfactorily addressed the last time this issue was raised. Indeed there's hardly any consensus this should even be a valid close reason.

At first I thought this is just about trying to keep things at a high enough level¹ But the more I see these comments the more it seems each high-rep user's threshold is nothing more or less than the boundary between what they can trivially answer and what they can't. Should I really vote to close questions on the basis that I know how to answer them off the top of my head?

One particular form this takes is closing because the question is "based on a misconception." What questions aren't, though? Either the person has a misconception (and a valid answer is "this is your misconception"!), or else they just haven't worked everything out yet (so we would close as homework).

My next thought is that we're trying to not duplicate Wikipedia or other standard references. I agree we shouldn't try to match Wikipedia in general-purpose, expository articles, given they've been refining those articles with an order of magnitude more contributors for many years. But I question how much physics is left for us to do that can't be derived and applied from the information in Wikipedia.

I'm pretty sure just about every one of the 502 answers I've written could be replicated with nothing more than access to Wikipedia. In fact, 207 of those answers explicitly link to the relevant Wikipedia articles.² Should I go back and vote to close all those questions? After all, I doubt more than 10 answers of mine display anything more than a bachelor's level of physics knowledge (if anyone disagrees, I challenge you to give me a list of 11 such answers). And where does it end? If the world's leading expert in X is on the site, is that person obligated to close all questions about X since they would all appear trivial?

It all comes down to these key questions:

• What does "insufficient effort" mean to the community?
• Is there some level of insufficient effort that warrants closure (as opposed to, say, downvoting)?
• If yes, what objective guidelines should we have on the issue? Given the many orders of magnitude difference in expertise here between different users in different topics, any guideline based on individuals' feelings is decidedly not useful, without at the very least some reduction criterion ("this is trivial for everyone" and "this is trivial for at least one person" are objective; "this is trivial for me" is not).

For a philosophical bonus, given how every meta discussion about scope always seems to be about bad questions, I'll add two more discussion points:

• What is the ideal question here, one that everyone agrees is great?
• If the above exists, are we obligated to close anything falling short of the ideal? Must we be at the extremal tip of the generality-quality curve?

---

¹Separate but related issue: We have neither a policy nor a notification to users about how advanced a topic must be to be allowed on the site, either in absolute terms or relative to our perceptions of where questioners should be in their education. I strongly suggest those who keep voting to close for such reasons should formalize this notion and get consensus from the community. I for one won't vote to close based on an entirely undocumented reason.

²Get a list of all answers with Wikipedia links made by a given user with this script. It probably misses some, for example links to other language pages or to explicit mobile pages.³

³Explicit mobile links (e.g. en.m.wikipedia.org) are a scourge on the internet and should be fixed.

Answer 1

Given that I'm probably the leading exponent of closing questions on the basis of insufficient prior research I'm relieved to see I'm not implicated in the examples Chris cites (I did VTC one of them, but because I thought it was unclear rather than lazy).

I'm not sure what I can add here that isn't already covered by my previous statement on the subject. My view is that the Physics SE is a quite extraordinary resource for aspiring young physicists. I suspect many of the regulars don't realise just how amazing it is that a teenage physics nerd can ask a question and get answers from real live working (mostly friendly) physicists. Speaking as one who was a teenage physics nerd back in the 70s I would have given my right arm for an opportunity like this.

But if the opportunity is abused it will disappear. What I find really rewarding is when an OP comments to thank me and say that they now understand something that had previously been frustrating them. This makes me feel I have left the world a better place than I found it, which surely only the most cynical of us wouldn't be pleased about. What I dislike is when I feel I'm being used as a lazy alternative to the OP putting in any effort for themselves, and if the latter type of question were to dominate then that would seriously put me off contributing to the site. Although I've stated a purely personal opinion here I'm guessing I'm not untypical and many others will feel the same way.

So the judgement I make is whether the question shows a real interest, and the only way I can judge this is to look at the question. How well is it written? Does it show any evidence of independant though? Most importantly how much effort has been put into writing it?

Chris' first question asks what insufficient effort means to the community, and the above hopefully makes it clear what I think it means. It has nothing to do with how simple/complex the question is or whether the OP is a physicist, schoolchild, OAP or whatever. It is purely a matter of whether the issue matters enough to the OP that they have done their best to research it before coming here.

Re the second question: lazy and ill motivated questions are actively harmful to this community and they need to be deterred. Downvoting is not enough. The point of closing is that it prevents the question being answered and therefore prevents the offender from being rewarded for their idleness. If lazy and ill motivated questions receive answers that just encourages the asking of such questions.

Re the third question: there is no objective measure of this - it's a hopelessly subjective judgement. I have to try and guess whether the OP is genuinely interested and will benefit from the effort I put in to answer it. Maybe this is an arrogant approach - who am I to judge my fellow man? That's a fair criticism and I respond by trying to be generous and error on the side of caution. Chris says any guideline based on individuals' feelings is decidedly not useful but I disagree with this. At the end of the day the questions are answered by individuals willing to put considerable effort into answering questions for no reward other than the inner glow of having made the world a better place. Deter those individuals and you leave the PSE no better than the myriad of other physics sites that litter the Internet.

My rant is running out of momentum now, and I should really come up up with some pithy closing statement, but I find myself lost for one. I suppose my basic principle is that we are all here because we want to help, specifically help anyone interested in physics to understand more about it. All I would ask of OPs is to respect that and not to take the piss.

Answer 2

To offer another perspective, perhaps the issue is simply that we, the community, are not clear enough about our expectations. Whilst forethought and clarity are integral to the education and formation of those of us who are doctors, masters or graduates of physics, it is not necessarily so for the enthusiasts and students in our community. However, we all appear to agree that would would like not to discourage the latter of us.

In the PSE introduction (help) the following points are given as guidance for what not to post:

• "Do my homework"-type physics questions
• Non-mainstream physics, including pitches for personal theories
• Anything else not directly related to physics
• Questions that are primarily opinion-based
• Questions with too many possible answers or that would require an extremely long answer

These points offer good general guidance, but they are very much open to interpretation. How does one distinguish between a "Do my homework"-type question and the type of valid question which one would tag as "homework and exercises"? To a non-physics graduate, what is considered non-mainstream? Where is the mention of what comprises reasonable effort in one's forethought and research?

Those without a very high level of education often lack the most basic research skills, and for some of them a forum such as this is their first port-of-call. It would appear to me that the mechanisms by which we temper their questions should be more constructive and directive. This is already done organically through the community itself: commentators often request that a question be clarified or reconsidered, and they often give directions to an external link or appropriate Internet search string. In the best instances, this is done with courtesy and grace. And kudos do those who have the patience and take the time. In doing so, they are improving our community.

Perhaps all that is required is some clearer guidance for inexperienced users: a more detailed help file, or and handful of useful flags which commentators can apply to offer recurring advice on the improvement to the questions under scrutiny. I believe that such minor changes would encourage the right types of questions without discouraging those who hope to ask them.

Answer 3

What does everyone mean by “insufficient research effort”?

I can't speak for everyone but only, of course, for myself.

Generally, I choose to Vote To Close For Insufficient Research Effort (VTCFIRE) in the case that (1) the answer can easily be found (typically, on this very site), (2) it's a bald question without something like "I'm puzzled by the other answers because...", i.e., there is essentially no evidence of research period.

Other regulars here most likely have different criteria for their VTCFIRE and that's fine with me. This is a community of individuals each with their own, perhaps evolving criteria for voting as each does.

Answer 4

This question might be directed at me. I cast a lot of down-votes because of insufficient research effort, including both the thermometer calibration and the electric field energy questions which you quote. So I dispute John Rennie's claim to be the leading exponent in this field!

I am not offended. Debate is good.

My reason for down-voting is not elitism, but because detailed answers to many fact-finding questions like the thermometer calibration question are already available on the internet (eg http://www.coleparmer.com/TechLibraryArticle/358), and I think it is pointless for PSE to duplicate such resources. In this question the OP demonstrates no research effort at all and gives the impression of casual curiosity. ("...This is quite vague, but I was just thinking about it...")

In the electric field energy question the OP says he has just started studying EM and "just read what some books call the energy OF a electric field." However, he does not question what these books say - which would be reasonable. Some explanation is very likely to be there later in the textbooks. But instead of reading further or researching, or discussing with classmates, or asking his teacher, the OP prematurely asks PSE to explain it to him, probably because that is the easiest option.

The impression I get is that such OPs are using PSE to avoid doing their own research or thinking. They would prefer that somebody else took the trouble to find relevant sources, filter out what is relevant to their interests, and spoon-feed them the answers. This does not encourage them to become good scientists, and in my opinion should be discouraged. If it is bad to provide detailed calculations for "homework-like" questions which the OP could do for himself, it must also be bad to provide detailed answers to requests for factual information which the OP could easily find for himself.

I always provide a comment to challenge the OP to reveal what research he/she has done. That is a positive response, not a negative one. Nobody should be in science who takes criticism personally.

I agree with a lot of what John Rennie says. Lazy and ill-motivated questions should be actively deterred (eg "I was wondering, what would happen if...?"). Unlike John I don't have rep to cast closing votes, so I down-vote instead.

In particular I agree that (probably) no objective criterion can be devised for what is "insufficient research effort". However, I suggest that questions could be entered into a template which includes fields which ask (inter alia) eg "What effort have you made to find an answer before posting on PSE?" It won't solve the problem entirely, but it should remind OPs what is expected of them.

I have absolutely no problem with "low level" questions. I've enjoyed several elementary questions which are surprisingly difficult to answer and therefore instructive for me also. My beef, like John's, is with laziness, regardless of level.

You allude to high-rep members voting to close elementary questions. I agree that something like that is happening. Many questions which I have found interesting, and which have shown genuine effort (eg Balancing forces on a liquid, No buoyancy inside liquid), have been closed unreasonably (in my opinion), mainly because they are superficially "homework-like". And conversely, many questions which obviously (to me) show little or no effort (such as the thermometer question), or are frivolous or speculative (such as SR and a rotating observer), are not closed off.

So, as far as I can see, the criteria mentioned in the PSE policy statements, and cited in the reasons for closure, are not being applied consistently.