-5
$\begingroup$

Today, I asked a question and it will probably be closed for missing context.I'm a freshmen year Physics & Mathematics student, and for me this question has enough context, which is not true based on the votes, but here is the problem; I don't know what is missing, which indicates that I don't really understand the true insight of my question, but it is the very reason that why I'm asking this question to learn what I don't know.Therefore, please indicating what is missing in the question when you are down voting or voting for closing the question.

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ FWIW I am fairly sure that the question was just initially misunderstood, but is (now) clear. I endorse voting to reopen it, but won't use my powervote to do it lest certain users accuse me of unilateral action. IIRC in English sometimes dimension is used in place of unit (of measurement). Unfortunately in math unit has many other meanings, and it gets confused because of the overloading. $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Oct 9 '16 at 11:50
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ "please indicat(e) what is missing in the question when you are down voting or voting for closing the question" If this is a general request, I am voting against it. If the request bears only on question 1960512, I count two comments doing exactly that on the page, one of them posted before you asked this on meta. $\endgroup$ – Did Oct 9 '16 at 14:25
  • $\begingroup$ @Did "(1)no context" doesn't help in this case, it just says the type of the mistake in my question. $\endgroup$ – onurcanbektas Oct 9 '16 at 14:35
  • $\begingroup$ @Did and why exactly are you against it ? Could you explain so that I can understand ? $\endgroup$ – onurcanbektas Oct 9 '16 at 14:37
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ The general request has been discussed (and rejected) many times (and some users savvier than I am with searches on the site should soon unearth examples). I object to it because, in my experience, it leads to nothing valuable but to exhausting, unfruitful, discussions (and, in the worst cases, being insulted for having explained a vote...). $\endgroup$ – Did Oct 9 '16 at 14:49
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I also second Did's comment. The question was initially misunderstood and unclear. That was fixed. Now it has 3 votes to reopen. Looks like the system is working perfectly! $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Oct 9 '16 at 14:51
  • $\begingroup$ @Did In your experience, this might have had some messy results, but you must also understand my situation in here.Yes, I added some other explanations to the question, but it was after someone asked the point that weren't clear. $\endgroup$ – onurcanbektas Oct 9 '16 at 15:01
  • $\begingroup$ Maybe in this particular question, I could have thought to add some examples and problem could have been solved in that way, but in general it might not be the case, so I think, at least, one clear comment should be left to the question without carrying it to any discussion if it causes trouble. $\endgroup$ – onurcanbektas Oct 9 '16 at 15:05
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ And (in case it wasn't already clear to all and sundry) I confess to not having checked the full history of the question until quid posted their answer. I only read the comments. Anyway, I consider this a success for the feedback systems we have in place. $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Oct 9 '16 at 17:25
18
$\begingroup$

The question you asked originally was this:

Does the unit vectors carry any unit information?

Does the unit vectors carry any unit information ?

Was this really your best effort to articulate your question?

I have a hard time to believe this, and the latter edit proves it. To be frank, I think you have very little to complain about in this case. If you want to blame something, blame your initial lack of effort.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Although, we are talking based on this particular question, I'm here pointing out a general issue.As I wrote in the comments in here and the question, for me this question quite clear in the above form, so I didn't feel any need to add additional information or examples.Moreover, as I pointed out int the comments above, for another question, the solution might not be so simple as this one. $\endgroup$ – onurcanbektas Oct 9 '16 at 16:09
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @Leth You ask follow up questions to try to understand what is actually going on in the edited question, before the "only" answer that could be given without guessing what you are looking for is "Yes." or "No.". Is that what you really wanted? Now, because of the insistence of others, you have the opportunity to get better answers, so it seems like a win win, we get both better questions and better answers. $\endgroup$ – Paul Plummer Oct 9 '16 at 16:22
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ @Leth when somebody tells you a question is unclear, a first natural step to clarify should always be to defined/explain the terms you use, especially non-standard ones. Using correct grammar also helps. "Do the vectors" is plural, "Does the vector" is singular "Does the vectors" is neither. Usually more detailed qu. put on hold as unclear do get explanation what specifically is unclear. There is psychology involved. Why should a user finding your Q unclear make the effort to write a 400 character explanation to your ca. 50 character Q? It was quite clear to them the Q is very unclear. $\endgroup$ – quid Oct 9 '16 at 17:28
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ "[F]or me the question is quite clear in the above form" $\not\implies $ the question will be clear to your Readers (which should be your aim). Often not knowing what is wrong with a Question means one should take a step back and ask about a definition rather than about a proof or other conclusion. $\endgroup$ – hardmath Oct 9 '16 at 22:00

You must log in to answer this question.

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