16
$\begingroup$

I am surprised to see someone flagged my questions — both asked long ago and had accepted answers — as missing context overnight.

Question 1 was asked years ago, whilst I was writing an essay and doubted about a terminology for a certain decomposition.

Question 2 is a question I encountered in learning infinite Galois theory. I was surprised that while there are claims similar to this about inseparable extensions, nothing is spoken to transcendental extensions, at least not in my textbook. I think my original post already elaborates how did I get to that question, which displays a certain level of understanding the problem itself.

This makes me wonder if my understanding of the community guideline is generally correct. IMHO, these posts addresses my questions without providing too much useless information, and shows that I know my questions. My feeling is that these votes are personal, but before complaining I should probably re-examine whether I wrote these questions correctly.

Questions:

  1. Are these posts really in need of more context?
  2. If so, what else can be added?
$\endgroup$
7
  • 19
    $\begingroup$ (1) An year old question is not really that old, while the other one is just 17 days old. Everyday I saw in the close vote review queue question that was posted in 2014, 13 or even 11. It is not uncommon. (2) I suggest you care only when it gathers 3, 4 close votes, or when the post is closed. $\endgroup$ Nov 15 at 19:24
  • 10
    $\begingroup$ Source : You can always improve your questions with the help of references which you've seen while researching for your question. To take an example : in the first question, it may have been useful to mention where you have seen the decomposition being used (or perhaps how you planned to use it) so that with further background, there's a larger chance of someone finding a related application or a generalization with a name. In the second question , it is clear that the answer wasn't accessible to you anyway, but you might have wanted to mention where you read up transcendence from. $\endgroup$ Nov 16 at 0:10
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Thanks for the comments. Now I see this is not a big deal, and that what can be improved with my questions. I feel that I can get along with this community once again. $\endgroup$
    – fantasie
    Nov 16 at 2:50
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ You are welcome! $\endgroup$ Nov 16 at 6:38
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ I think both questions have sufficient contexts. The close votes don't seem sensible to me. $\endgroup$
    – user1551
    Nov 17 at 9:00
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Teresa above mentioned references. While a terse exposition of the problem may be optimal for experts in the field... Reading as an amateur, I find hyperlinks to define domain-specific terms extremely helpful. $\endgroup$
    – aSteve
    Nov 28 at 12:03
  • $\begingroup$ @aSteve That’s a good point. I just did it. $\endgroup$
    – fantasie
    Nov 28 at 13:13
4
$\begingroup$

Since this discussion is gaining more heat than what I anticipated, I followed @Teresa and @aSteve from comments and updated both question for the possible future viewers.

The questions were in their original unedited appearance by the time I submitted this post: they are accessible through the edited xx days ago button.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

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