7
$\begingroup$

My recent question about the significance of further LIGO events was appreciated, it appears, by all but five people. I'm lobbying for reopening. This question is not too broad--it's exactly analogous to asking "Why is the detection of gravitational waves so significant?", except I'm not asking about the significance of a first detection, I'm asking about significance of further detections (which was not well addressed in the linked question), and the most recent one in particular.

$\endgroup$
15
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Doesn't the fact that the highest rated answer starts with, "There are many things..." necessarily imply that is surely too broad? $\endgroup$
    – Kyle Kanos
    Commented Jun 2, 2017 at 22:51
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ It's reopened, fwiw. $\endgroup$
    – auden
    Commented Jun 2, 2017 at 23:47
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @heather well that is disappointing that a clearly too broad question gets reopened. $\endgroup$
    – Kyle Kanos
    Commented Jun 3, 2017 at 2:55
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @KyleKanos or that a reopened, up voted question with one or more good up voted answers is still called "clearly too broad". Perhaps "clearly" is a subjective term? $\endgroup$
    – uhoh
    Commented Jun 3, 2017 at 14:39
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @uhoh: See my first comment. "Clearly" is neither subjective nor inappropriate for the question asked. Note further that you are incorrectly aligning votes & answers with topicality; in reality, there is absolutely no correlation between the two. $\endgroup$
    – Kyle Kanos
    Commented Jun 3, 2017 at 14:41
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @KyleKanos Well, I'd be cautious about saying there is no correlation without actually demonstrating that there is no correlation. But I'm guessing your point is that votes and answers do not necessarily match up with topicality, and in particular that an off-topic question can get many upvotes and answers but that doesn't change the fact that it's off-topic. That is definitely a valid point to make. $\endgroup$
    – David Z
    Commented Jun 5, 2017 at 3:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @DavidZ: Yes, that is the point I'm trying to make. Perhaps the absolutely no correlation bit was "over the top," but I think the point should be easily seen enough even including it. $\endgroup$
    – Kyle Kanos
    Commented Jun 5, 2017 at 10:05
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @KyleKanos Does "There are many things" really qualify something as too broad? For example, in the original LIGO question that is also linked, the answer is essentially 3 different answers with bolded headlines separating them. It still seems fairly concentrated on the central topic (implications of LIGO experiments) and does not seem overly long or confusing... $\endgroup$
    – JMac
    Commented Jun 5, 2017 at 20:33
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ ...Then if we look at the "there are many things" example; notice that he still only really gives one answer. His "many things" is in reference to the main bulk of his answer; stating that the gathering more populated data for several measurements is really the goal. $\endgroup$
    – JMac
    Commented Jun 5, 2017 at 20:34
  • $\begingroup$ @JMac: Yes, it really does because it's effectively a list-based questions, which we close very frequently as too broad. $\endgroup$
    – Kyle Kanos
    Commented Jun 6, 2017 at 1:48
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @KyleKanos Just using the phrase "there are many things" doesn't really make it a list-based question in the context though. His second paragraph elaborates that we need more populated data to ultimately determine more about the nature of binary black holes. It does a perfectly fine job wrapping up the "many things" into an answer that is not too broad. $\endgroup$
    – JMac
    Commented Jun 6, 2017 at 12:07
  • $\begingroup$ @JMac ignore the answer for now. OP is asking for a list of things that future observations will give us. That is a list based question, one that we frequently close as too broad $\endgroup$
    – Kyle Kanos
    Commented Jun 6, 2017 at 12:45
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @KyleKanos I think you're the one who is interpreting this "list" part. The question was about the motivation for doing continued experiments. The fact that the answer has "multiple" different factors doesn't really make it a list question. The "list" is tied together with the implications of the experiment. The "broadness" is still within a quite limited scope. "Broadness" is somewhat vague and opinion based; but based on the actual question and answer content, I don't see a valid reason to say this is clearly too broad; it seems to be perfectly healthy in the grey area. $\endgroup$
    – JMac
    Commented Jun 6, 2017 at 12:52
  • $\begingroup$ @KyleKanos I deleted my comment since after reading it in the light of your response I agree it was too personal $\endgroup$
    – AGML
    Commented Jun 11, 2017 at 17:04
  • $\begingroup$ @AGML understood, mine too. Feel free to flag this one for deletion after reading ;) $\endgroup$
    – Kyle Kanos
    Commented Jun 11, 2017 at 17:05

0

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .