I think I my questions have been clear enough and still they have been put on hold, or closed. There are a couple of members who are always among the close voters. Is there a way I can stop this bias?

Below are my questions that I think were closed in spite of my repeated attempt to clarify. These are my last four questions in a row. You can see few members being there pretty frequently voting for close.


Quantum entanglement correlations - role of probability

Memory loophole in quantum entanglement

What is meant by when we say more than two (say 4) particles are entangled

  • $\begingroup$ It would be nice of you to provide a few examples. Remember that someone must also have flagged your question in the first place. So unless you have a conspiration of a sufficient number of high-rep users against you, there still remains the chance that there is something to be criticised about them. Hard to tell without you providing any detail. $\endgroup$ – Sanya Sep 3 '16 at 20:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Sanya: Edited the question to add examples. $\endgroup$ – kpv Sep 3 '16 at 20:42
  • $\begingroup$ "How can you challenge if i think my questions are unfairly closed or put on hold?" Or "How can I challenge if you think your questions are unfairly closed or put on hold?" ??? Either question makes no sense to me, and I don't understand. $\endgroup$ – Buttle Butkus Sep 4 '16 at 23:58
  • $\begingroup$ @ButtleButkus This says it all. Even the SE people did not raise this point. So, the question could be interpreted all right so far. You are really a promising future moderator, you will take it to the next level! $\endgroup$ – kpv Sep 5 '16 at 1:44
  • $\begingroup$ I think you should fix your pronouns. Either "I" or "you" but not both, unless I'm misunderstanding your question. $\endgroup$ – Buttle Butkus Sep 5 '16 at 1:45
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ As for annoying moderators, I agree. They are always voting down and voting to close and never commenting. I try to help new questioners when I have the time so that they can learn to ask better questions. Unexplained downvotes are useless. I suggest they require a reason for every downvote. $\endgroup$ – Buttle Butkus Sep 5 '16 at 1:47
  • $\begingroup$ @ButtleButkus: You are technically absolutely correct. What I meant is that if your inclination is to understand the question, The question is very clear. If you want to find fault, then, yes there is a fault that even the SE people did not point out so far. $\endgroup$ – kpv Sep 5 '16 at 1:48
  • $\begingroup$ Your question title is unintelligible. I can only guess at its meaning by reading the question body. Why not fix it? Or not. Doesn't matter to me but you're the one worried about your downvotes! $\endgroup$ – Buttle Butkus Sep 5 '16 at 1:53
  • $\begingroup$ @ButtleButkus: Done. Thanks. $\endgroup$ – kpv Sep 5 '16 at 2:07

I voted to close this question for several reasons.

  • It was extremely unclear when it was posted. I asked you to make several clarifications, after which it was still unclear. After more requests from clarification from two separate users, and seven revisions in total, it finally made sense. But most close votes had been cast before then.
  • All four of your questions are about 'quantum entanglement', but none of them clearly define what quantum system you're working with. You keep asking about the 'statistical correlation', but you don't define what you're correlating, and you often mix up entanglement with correlation, when these phenomena are totally distinct. (This problem is invisible to people who don't know quantum mechanics, because your question was phrased in grammatically correct English sentences, but it's clear to people who do. That's why you need 3k+ to vote to close.)
  • All four of your questions are made to promote your personal theory of quantum entanglement. If you want feedback on this theory, you should just state outright what it is. If you don't, we're just going to answer with what standard quantum mechanics says, and in all 4 of your questions, it just says "no".

Given the above, I think your questions were rightly closed. Some of them may be accidentally reopened by people who aren't paying too much attention (because it looks vaguely grammatically correct, as in my second point).

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yeah, this is pretty much it. The questions are simply not at the level necessary for reopening - they are much more indicative of a need for a long, careful read of Nielsen & Chuang or some other good quantum information textbook. $\endgroup$ – Emilio Pisanty Sep 5 '16 at 13:47

In general, I think the correct way to challenge any closing behaviour that seems weird is to write a meta post and discuss it here, so I think it was a good idea to open this thread.
I however think your description of the situation is a bit dramatic. There is one person who actually voted to close in all four cases - who just happens to be a rather active member here and probably just went to check the queue more often. Otherwise, if I have counted correctly, the 16 hold votes were cast by 13 different people. So there is quite a broad spectrum.
And I have to admit that I really do not understand what you are asking in any of the four questions either - I am really and honestly sorry for that, but I do not understand it. Maybe talking about the topic with someone in the chat to crystallise the question would be a good idea.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Hi Sanya, One member is in all 4, one member is in three out of 4, 2 are in 2 out of 4. $\endgroup$ – kpv Sep 3 '16 at 21:09

You have more than 2000 reputation points.

Currently I am the single 3k+ user on the site regularly revisiting the VtC votes, trying to save, what is salvageable. There are some others, too, but they are not really active.

While we have an inner circle around in 4-6 persons who are regular voters and don't hesitate to close your question if they think it is maybe homework-like, or it is maybe unclear. Or any other. The close reasons of the site are far too broad and unclear, and it seems they don't hesitate to interpret them always the possible most widely. Their real reason, why they have to continously annoy and harm goodstanding people, is still unclear to me. Asking them for that, I got mostly arrogant reactions and algorithmic citation of well-known rules.

But, if you are now at 2k+, then the 3k+ is also not too far. The site requires lenience, friendliness, the spectrum of the possible close reasons needs to be cleared, and the current VtC rampage has to get to an end.

I suggest to get the 3k+ ASAP and try to help our VtC voters to differentiate between the really offtopic posts and the answerable ones.

Note: the StackOverflow was in a quite similar state until around the spring 2015 moderator election. After that, their behavior suddenly changed. It is already a surprisingly friendly site. Some vehement moderators silently stepped down, others toke back. Some particularly hostile inner circle members became quite friendly moderators after they got their long-wanted diamond. I don't know, what was in the background, probably I won't ever know it, but I suspect it was actually an induced change from the CM side. I suspect, some similar could happen also there.

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Thank you for the support. I may reach 3K but I was expecting a science related site members to be not so opinionated. Some of them really seem to be policing the topics selectively. Even your answer is now downvoted by two, I cancelled one with my upvote. $\endgroup$ – kpv Sep 3 '16 at 21:34
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @kpv I also thought on it a lot. I think the main problem with it is a social evolution mechanism. In an uncontrolled environment, with time surely a small circle will appear whose activity results the oppression and the expelling any other. It doesn't have to be a conscient, hostile behavior from their side, they also have very different opinions and ideas. But simply it is how evolution works. If we want to fix the site, we need to work continously against this mechanism. There are SE sites, where it works, on others it doesn't. $\endgroup$ – peterh Sep 3 '16 at 21:48
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @kpv Btw, as far I know, the physoverflow is exactly what you want. They know this trap what rendered the PSE nearly unusable and are working actively to avoid it. But, don't leave the PSE, too. The site requires your help. $\endgroup$ – peterh Sep 3 '16 at 22:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ No, I am not leaving it. Who are the 4-6 persons? can you help me open my question at physics.stackexchange.com/questions/277873/… $\endgroup$ – kpv Sep 3 '16 at 22:03
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @kpv I already voted to reopen it. You can see the review stats even if you aren't 3k+. And, you can see in anybodys review history, how he voted - these are public informations. Actually, the SE publicizes a lot infos what it doesn't advertise. $\endgroup$ – peterh Sep 3 '16 at 22:07
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ OK, I am on board. I saw you voted for open and Numrok voted for open. I also voted for open but it shows open(2) does that mean it needs 2 more for open? $\endgroup$ – kpv Sep 3 '16 at 22:20
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @kpv Yes. 5 close/reopen votes are needed to close or reopen a question. But, 3 "leave open" or "leave closed" votes are enough for them to get out from the close/reopen queue. $\endgroup$ – peterh Sep 3 '16 at 22:35
  • $\begingroup$ So, I just wait and hope someone will vote open for it? $\endgroup$ – kpv Sep 3 '16 at 22:37
  • $\begingroup$ @kpv I suggest to visit the chatroom of the site, there we can get a more direct contact with the regular users. You can get answers to questions what you can't ask here, and you can resolve what resolvable (and, the rules are much more broad as in the main site). $\endgroup$ – peterh Sep 3 '16 at 22:41
  • $\begingroup$ @kpv Yes, and it will be probably unsuccessful... if things could be solved so easily, I wouldn't be here now. Your help is really needed... not only for yourself, but also for a lot of other people, who visited the PSE, asked some interesting about physics, followed all of the rules, and their question was still closed and left closed. $\endgroup$ – peterh Sep 3 '16 at 22:42
  • $\begingroup$ @kpv Please come to the site chatroom, we have to talk. Yes, I know it is catastrophal from the ergonomical view. $\endgroup$ – peterh Sep 3 '16 at 23:02

You must log in to answer this question.

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