7
$\begingroup$

I still don't understand the reason for many closed questions on PSE. The last case is the following question. It seems to me a perfectly understandable question, hitting a central issue in the conceptual building of Physics. Claiming that it is not well-focused seems to me a pretext for closing a question somebody did not like for other unknown subjective reasons.

Of course, I can (and I'll do) vote for reopening the question. However, I think that even if it is reopened, there is a reputation damage to the PSE site. What the OP should do to take into account the motivation for closing? Should the question be limited to just a single example? But the real value of this question is in stressing that the procedure is transversal to the entire field of Physics. Honestly, if I were the OP, I would leave this site forever, and as a contributor with a reputation above 39k, I am seriously considering stopping my active participation in answering (but not to criticize here the excesses in closing questions).

Edit after a comment claiming that this question is too similar to Rethinking the "too broad" criterion and the following closing vote.

The present question begins with an issue that is unrelated to the one mentioned above. The question cited in Rethinking... was clearly too wide in scope, as recognized by its OP and evidenced by the splitting of the question into different sub-questions. Here, there is a unique question, and I have a hard time seeing how it could be better focused without reducing it to a too narrow question on a specific example, thus losing the transversal and general characteristic of the procedure commonly used in Physics.

Of course, these are opinions and consequently subjective. However, there is a simple experimental way to decide between these different points of view: leave enough time to see a reasonable answer that is not the size of a book. I believe it is possible.

$\endgroup$
10
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ I'm not sure why you're ignoring the comments - the claim isn't that the question isn't understandable, it's that a proper answer to it would be a book, not a physics.SE answer. If you disagree, that's fine, (and I don't really want to take either side in this comment) but this meta post is written as if the close reason was that the question was unclear, which it is not. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 5 at 20:17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This question is similar to: Rethinking the "too broad" criterion. If you believe it’s different, please edit the question, make it clear how it’s different and/or how the answers on that question are not helpful for your problem. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 5 at 21:18
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @ACuriousMind, the comment that a proper answer to it would be a book is too vague to be an explanation of the reason to classify the question as not well-focused. Many questions on this site would require a book. The main discrimination between well- or badly-focused questions is the possibility of their splitting into separate sub-questions. I do not see how such a splitting would be possible for the question I am discussing. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 6 at 5:07
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ ...there is a reputation damage to the PSE site. Citation required for this claim. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 6 at 15:32
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @KyleKanos Just sampling randomly from a google search: "In summary, from time to time I still passively read through threads that interest me on Physics SE, but I have stopped using it as a place to actively ask or answer questions. Quora should still improve the user interface, in particular to write and preview mathematical equations, but surprisingly I got the feeling that despite the very low quality content that is tolerated here too, Quora has a larger number of nice physicists and good physics students who are discussing and learning ...physics together, than Physics SE..." $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 6 at 15:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @KyleKanos A systematic analysis could be done, but it takes some time. If I have some spare time, I'll try it. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 6 at 15:45
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ the problem is that any systematic analysis would likely based on biased data since people who hold the view contrarian to the one you quote are less likely to comment on the web about their positive experience. Basically, ranting is much more common than flowering. There is no doubt there are some disappointed users, and if they like Quora better good for them; the core point is that there are plenty of current users who feel the format is sufficiently constructive to keep coming back. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 6 at 23:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I do agree with others this question is borderline: I certainly don't know how to answer this using principles of physics and I do think this kind of question - interesting as it may - is not a good fit for the site. We did function for many years under a model where terrible questions accumulated at a rate faster than we could close them so honestly, I'm not that worried about overzealously closing questions. The community has an overall good track record of reopening questions which were really wrongly closed. People should stop taking all this so personally. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 6 at 23:51
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @ZeroTheHero, from your comments, I still don't understand why you think the question is unfocused. Perhaps you were unsure how to answer using principles of Physics. However, some answers have been given. Are you saying that they are not based on principles of Physics? $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 7 at 14:26
  • $\begingroup$ The answer actually depends on the instrument so I don’t think there’s a general principle that come into play. I kinda think it would be good for HSM though. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 7 at 23:17

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
8
$\begingroup$

I can tell that you are frustrated with the closure, despite the subsequent reopening. I think some of that may be from thinking that “closure -> bad question”. While bad questions should get closed because they are bad, sometimes good questions should be closed too. Not all good questions are a good fit for PSE.

For me, this question was an excellent question, but it was a very “borderline” fit for PSE. Specifically, it was right on the border of PSE and HSM. Metrology is an important part of physics, but the question had a non-negligible component of history in terms of the order of invention of ammeters and electromagnetic theory. I like metrology, so I wanted to include some of it that I thought might be lost at HSM.

I chose to answer rather than close, but I do have to say that I kind of “hurried” to answer because I also thought that a closure was likely. I wanted to get an answer posted before the likely closure.

Although I disagree with closing this specific question, I also understand the closure votes. They are not acting unreasonably. And they are not necessarily judging the question to be bad. This question is a borderline fit for PSE. It is hard for me to see how it could be answered without involving some of the history.

Finally, I will note that it was reopened. This is a normal operation of this community. On borderline cases (in terms of either quality or fit) we expect for some back and forth as the community reaches a consensus in a situation where reasonable people can disagree.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ The problem I raised does not disappear if the question is reopened. I see your point, but I have to note that you are suggesting a reason for closing that is different from the one chosen by the original closers. If the closure or non-closure of a question is so strongly dependent on nuances of classification, I believe that the reduction to 3 closing votes for the effective closure was not a wise choice. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 6 at 5:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ About the historical side of metrological decisions, it is a fact. However, the issue raised in the question is not confined to a specific metrological decision, but has to do with a basic methodology of Physics. As such, the answer does not need to refer to historical facts. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 6 at 5:22
5
$\begingroup$

Imo this is a very good and insightful question. At least in my reading it fits exactly in physics. It's not your philosophical "how do I know my ruler isn't stretching along with everything else?" and neither is it the historical "how did this happen in this instance?"

As I read it, the question asks about the chicken and egg problem behind quantities that can only be measured indirectly. Eg a theory is supposedly based on experimental observations, but the observations themselves can seemingly only be done using instruments which translate that quantity (eg current or voltage) in something directly observable by humans (eg displacement). And those tools seem to require the theory to be there before they can be built. That's neither philosophical nor historical question, that's directly touching on how physics is done --- how new quantities can be grasped.

Is this too broad? Probably not as the usual gist can be summarized somewhat well either per se or using a single example be it electricity or anything else.

Finally — even the questions that (unlike this one) fall on border of philosophy or entirely within philosophy ("what if the ruler stretches?") shouldn't be closed. As long as a layperson can't know that it's outside physics, it is appropriate for physicists to be the ones explaining that physics doesn't cover this and why is it so.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ I agree it's an acceptable question and not too broad. Too many negative votes in general, IMO. Leading also to too many Closed questions. Yes, there are probably some cases of "too broad..." but withing decent limits, I don't see something inherently wrong with "too broad", especially if there are good answers. I don't think playing democracy is the right way forward, as once a _subjective_ negative vote is cast, the visibility of that question drops under the radar, hard to recover and deeply unfair. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 16 at 12:11

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.