-8
$\begingroup$

I took 15 minutes to write an answer, nobody comments, asks for precision, instead they do vote to close because "it is unclear" ?

I don't understand this attitude. I believe my answer explains in every detail why the question is very interesting.

Fourier transform of the multiplication of $f\in L^2(\mathbb R)$ and $g(x) = e^{2\pi ix^2}$

I think this kind of problem happens almost everyday.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Closing as unclear is a form of asking for precision, one which carries more weight because it has immediate consequences. The description "Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking." carries all the information you would put in a comment asking for clarification anyway. $\endgroup$ – rschwieb Dec 8 '17 at 16:55
  • 10
    $\begingroup$ Answering unclear questions is risky business. Half the time you wind up writing something that the OP will reject for one reason or another. I know we are all inclined to come to the defense of questions we as individuals find "interesting," but objectively speaking there is nothing mysterious about what we're seeing here. Hopefully the OP edits and improves so that the question gets re-opened! Although the chances of that now might be diminished since they already might have an answer... $\endgroup$ – rschwieb Dec 8 '17 at 16:58
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Well, to paraphrase something I heard recently "I don't understand this attitude that question closure means a question is dead." $\endgroup$ – rschwieb Dec 8 '17 at 16:59
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Ironically, this post would be greatly improved by adding context and further information. In particular, it would be nice if you could edit the OP to indicate why you think this is a problem and to include further information that shows that you're familiar with the oft-discussed cultural norms surrounding closing on this site. $\endgroup$ – Stella Biderman Dec 8 '17 at 17:20
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @reuns I'm saying that your question here on meta would be improved by adding more context to the question that you're asking here on meta. In particular, it would be nice if you could edit the post that you made here on meta to indicate why you think that the closing of the MSE question is a problem and to include further information that shows that you're familiar with the oft-discussed cultural norms surrounding closing on MSE. $\endgroup$ – Stella Biderman Dec 8 '17 at 17:35
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ @reuns This is a question and answer site, not a math forum- and long discussions are not desired. This place is optimized for clear questions and answers, not for dialogue. $\endgroup$ – Michael Greinecker♦ Dec 8 '17 at 17:46
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ @reuns It is not clear if the OP understand anything you write. It is indeed not even clear if they know what is Fourier transform. Without any effort from the OP, it is hard to guess their background and where they get stuck. $\endgroup$ – user99914 Dec 8 '17 at 17:58
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ I strongly oppose the closure of this question. As I've commented before about meta questions, closing is not a super-dislike. Every meta question is opinion-based. $\endgroup$ – user296602 Dec 8 '17 at 20:24
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I'd also like to add that I really don't agree with the closure as unclear - it's a clearly stated question for someone who knows what a Fourier transform is (and it's a bit curious that only two of the five close-voters actually seem to have any expertise in real or Fourier analysis, at least based on answer history...). Voting to close as missing context seems far more appropriate. $\endgroup$ – user296602 Dec 8 '17 at 20:31
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ One effect of closing the question is to stop others from providing answers. So your action seems questionable to me. @StellaBiderman $\endgroup$ – user99914 Dec 8 '17 at 22:25
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @JohnMa Honestly I hadn’t thought this through particularly carefully. That makes sense, and I’ll refrain from doing this in the future. $\endgroup$ – Stella Biderman Dec 8 '17 at 22:28
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ @user296602 I agree with the stance against closure on meta in many cases. However, for the specific case I do think a case can be made for closure. Not only is there no question (this can be alright on meta) there is not even a clear subject for discussion or concern. Plus the general subject came up frequently already. $\endgroup$ – quid♦ Dec 8 '17 at 22:46
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I would respectfully submit that closure should be based on the question and the question that you refer to is really not a very good one. The OP put really no effort into it. In addition, the closure of an answered question is really not that big a deal. Folks can still vote on it, as I've just upvoted your answer. I've voted to close questions that I myself have answered, like this. Ultimately, I think it's a mistake to put to much effort to answer a low effort question for exactly the reasons that rschweib states. $\endgroup$ – Mark McClure Dec 9 '17 at 13:08
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Having said that, I don't think this particular meta thread should be closed and deletion would be unreasonable. This meta thread implies a clear question, "why would one vote to close a question with a good answer?", and I don't quite see it as a rant, though I do think it should be written more clearly as a question, rather than as a complaint. $\endgroup$ – Mark McClure Dec 9 '17 at 13:14
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ As for the "zero effort" judgement: OP says in the question that $fg\in L^2$. It is an important step since not every function has a Fourier transform; this step justifies that $fg$ does have a Fourier transform so that one can make sense of the question. $\endgroup$ – Jack Dec 10 '17 at 14:51
9
$\begingroup$

Just because a question can be contextualized in an answer doesn't mean that the original question had the proper context. Answers have no bearing on the content of a question, and it is not a defense of the question in the context of discussion it's closure. Closure votes are a judgement of the question, not the question together with its answers. Many highly up-voted questions with excellent answers have been closed, for example here, here, and here. It's excellent that you were able to give an answer that makes the question look good, but that doesn't matter at all to the question of if the question should be closed.

Furthermore, this question was not closed for the crime of "not being interesting." It was closed for being unclear. The close notification reads "Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need." One reason that this is appropriate is that the OP has shown no work or indication that they have thought about the problem. See this meta post about showing effort and this meta post about the definition of context for details on the community's policy.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry for editiing my question so late. It's because lately I haven't been looking into my emails frequently. $\endgroup$ – amsmath Dec 11 '17 at 1:49
5
$\begingroup$

As one of five users who cast a close vote for the question, I didn't have an attitude when I hit the "Close" button. I made this vote based on the quality of the question itself. The answers appearing in grey color at the bottom were not supposed to be taken into consideration during the review.

| |
$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

As one of the reviewers who closed the question, your answer looks well written and correct, but you are wasting your effort on such a low quality question.

In my opinion, the question writer is trolling for attention - save your math for better quality questions.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I agree with putting the question on hold, but (-1) for your extremely off-putting last line. Don't ascribe bad intentions to the asker when there is no evidence for it. $\endgroup$ – user296602 Dec 8 '17 at 18:33
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @user296602 I'm quite sure JonMark has a valid point; so lets use a different adjecitve: The question writer is..." a help-vampire and it's a valid observation on virtually every site on the SE network. $\endgroup$ – amWhy Dec 8 '17 at 19:15
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @amWhy Describing someone as a help-vampire is one thing, although there's absolutely no evidence for it in this case - the asker has a long history of good answers, and a 8-1 ratio of answers to questions. But to accuse a well-intentioned poster of "trolling for attention" is ridiculous and more than a bit insulting. $\endgroup$ – user296602 Dec 8 '17 at 20:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @user296602 I object to the term "trolling" used in this case, too, and it is insulting. $\endgroup$ – amWhy Dec 8 '17 at 20:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Another comment, for JonMark: Why did you vote to close this question 62 seconds after answering it? Either it's worth answering or it's not. Pick one. $\endgroup$ – user296602 Dec 8 '17 at 21:20
  • $\begingroup$ this meta question isn't that unique, most get closed, however this one seems to have generated quite a debate, (mind you that's an answer to me voting to reopen it aswell). I answered it because I voted to close the main site question, and so I felt I should. $\endgroup$ – JMP Dec 8 '17 at 21:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The question can remain, with all it's debate, even without reopening. I think you're inconsistent in what you claim (crappy question should not be answered), and your answering of a crappy question here on this meta post, and just like the asker of this meta post, you're arguing for the reopening of a non-question/non-quality question. ?? $\endgroup$ – amWhy Dec 9 '17 at 1:54
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The only thing I can say about this "answer" accusing me to be a math troll (or whatever you might want to call it) is: ridiculous. And yes, I take it as an insult. Thanks for the flowers. $\endgroup$ – amsmath Dec 11 '17 at 1:53

You must log in to answer this question.

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