# Instead of closing questions first specify what needs to be improved

Final update: Apologies to mods, it was frustrating to always trying to help and not even get a hint of what is needed to fix the question, It has been emotionally draining to get any hints of what was suppose to be a simple pondering.

Edit Asking what needs to be improved ends in only downvotes and no suggestion of what to do to improve the question, it only shows that there was nothing to be improved in the first place. Thanks all for their constructive contribution good to know what to (not) expect next time.

Asking a question which is really (has the tag) recreational (Analogue operation to $\frac{d x^n}{d x}=nx^{n-1}$ but ending with $nx^{n-i}$ instead ($i$ is complex ))

Getting the closed reason : "Please provide additional context, which ideally explains why the question is relevant to you and our community. Some forms of context include: background and motivation, relevant definitions, source, possible strategies, your current progress, why the question is interesting or important, etc."

As mentioned in the question

I have no reason or application for this, just wondered what is specific to differentiation that causes shifting by real magnitudes only, I am assuming that there is a more general operation where the normal differentiation is special case when a specific value is used.

Not sure how to change the question after the provided answer, using the answer to edit the question would make a very well thought answer to look idiotic.

So I found out closing questions are done by humans not by system bots. What is the purpose of just using the templated generic text that does not seem to apply in this instance?

In short, what can the question be changed to? In many instances I have edited questions for others to show what and how the question can be improved, is it too much to ask for the same? How could people be so not helpful in helping one another in an open system like this?

• At least, you could explain what's the meaning of $x^{n-i}$. Feb 2, 2022 at 8:10
• @JoséCarlosSantos : I thought I did that by having $x^{n-1}$ in the differentiated result I used as analogue, I'll try , thank you. Feb 2, 2022 at 8:12
• Please remove references to dumb system robot. The reviews are done by well intentioned users. There is a community bot which does post comment on poor questions.
– Paramanand Singh Mod
Feb 2, 2022 at 8:24
• Please consider using the Constructive Feedback chatroom if you need feedback on questions. While the room is somewhat inactive, I actually stay in the room regularly now and have been trying to bring users there with the idea that reinvigorating the room will allow us to review and improve the question without needing the comments section or creating meta posts for each question. Feb 2, 2022 at 8:39
• @ParamanandSingh : There are no names on the action, when a question was closed there used to be name of people who voted for it to be closed, and at least if I saw name of someone that I had respect for I'd reach to them to ask what is missing, when there are no names on an action it is logical to assume the action has been performed by some moronic bot rather than humans. Feb 2, 2022 at 10:37
• @ParamanandSingh : so if the bot did not post anything what is the arbitrary made up rules that are being used to close the question. Asking what guidelines to be followed is only answered by nothing in response. Feb 2, 2022 at 10:44
• If you are convinced that your question is ok, then vote to reopen? It sends it to the reopen queue where other people can evaluate it. Feb 2, 2022 at 12:04
• @jimjim This is interesting - already second time I hear from somebody that they do not see the names of the close voters. This is what I see on that question: i.sstatic.net/TkV0G.png I'll just check whether you see the names of the close voters at least in the revision history and in the timeline. Feb 2, 2022 at 12:06
• Since there is a description saying "Viewable by the post author and users with the close/reopen votes privilege", I have automatically assumed that I see the same thing as the OP does - it seems that I was wrong. But it was pointed out to me that the names are not shown in this banner to the OP, here is the relevant post on Meta Stack Exchange: How could we improve our planned post notice improvements? The close voters are still visible in the timeline and in the revision history. Feb 2, 2022 at 12:35
• @MartinSleziak : here is the image of what I see : i.sstatic.net/DklOA.png Feb 2, 2022 at 12:35
• As already mentioned, anybody can see the names of all closevoters in the post timeline, regardless of whether they can also see any banners on the post. If you haven't tried doing this, it makes no sense to continue discussing what else you see.
– Nij
Feb 3, 2022 at 6:15
• @Nij I'd guess the digression to this topic was caused mainly by me. (Since I mistakenly thought that the OP sees the same thing as the users with the close/reopen votes privilege.) Feb 3, 2022 at 8:48
• @JonathanZsupportsMonicaC : Since you can see what is wrong and what the correction can be please edit as you see fit. PS: You are absolutely wrong about the insult, it was discussed with MartinSleziak 4 or 5 comments up, but hey what do I know. Have a nice day and be positive in your comments, it gave me a major negative vibe. Feb 6, 2022 at 10:00
• @JonathanZsupportsMonicaC : Edited check to see if it is ok now. Regarding "What you give is what you get." really? Starting a comment by saying "You this that and other" , a constructive way would have been to point out the problems. But still everything is what out minds makes it to be, so I guess you do have a point. This has been a good exercise in dealing with humans again. Next time try giving example of instead of A say B. Be positive and constructive. Thanks Feb 6, 2022 at 21:09
• @jimjim: A kind mod asked you to "Please remove references to dumb system robot." early on. It was a highly upvoted comment. You did not remove that reference. But you have since then, and I thank you for it. I'm also glad if this post brings it back to people's attention that they are (mostly) dealing with other people on this site. And I hope to see you using a more positive tone here too. Feb 7, 2022 at 17:37

The basic reason to close Questions is to prevent Answers from being posted until the problem statement is in clear enough form to admit a mathematically reasoned argument that solves it.

So Reviewers will judge the prospect that the Question is close to being in such shape. If the prospects seem poor, then closing the Question until substantial fixes are made is appropriate. Sometimes these edits are forthcoming. In other cases the Original Poster (OP) may decide the effort is not worthwhile or the problem was just a misunderstanding, or for some other reason never explained just abandon their post.

Having a Question closed invites the OP to improve it. In your specific post you realized that $$i$$ as used in $$x^{n-i}$$ was open to misinterpretation, and you clarified that $$i$$ meant the imaginary root of $$-1$$, not an integer variable. Such clarifications are fairly routine. The problem is naturally clearer to the OP than to the Readers until the setup and context of the problem is shared.

Sometimes a greater difficulty occurs, as I believe it did here. The OP believes that the Question makes perfect sense the way it was written and sees no need for changes. In short the OP sees the problem as clear and does not appreciate the Reader's inability to parse it. But the Reader must rely on the OP as the expert as to what is being asked! It would, for example, not work out well if the OP were, in the face of having a Question closed, insist that it is the Readers' responsibility to explain what the problem means.

Your Question has a structure that can be sketched as "What if we did X but with Y instead of Z?" This outline can be a very good heuristic for coming up with interesting math problems. But bear in mind that research effort is required before posting a Question. Even a very big misunderstanding of whether it makes sense to do "X with Y instead of Z" would be acceptable to many Readers if they were presented with research that supported the OP's belief that it ought to be so.

My suggestion would be to drop back and ask a more threshold Question, perhaps along the lines of "Why doesn't it makes sense to do X with Y when we are allowed to do X with Z?" This more fundamental perspective might even permit you to make a stronger research effort, and the insight that you get will be worth three times as much as when others try to tell to you the same point.

• Worth pointing out that posters may not see the "greater difficulty" as they write the question, therefore it is more likely that they will have to ask the question, receive feedback such as yours, and retrace steps. Furthermore, recreation with numbers, or even geometrical figures requires less motivation, so that users are tempted to get stuck in. Given that this was tagged "recreational" with a calculus streak, I think people will need more motivation to work on it. Essentially, the more mathematically advanced your topic, the more you'd have to motivate any recreational request. Feb 2, 2022 at 17:44
• @Sarvesh I wish you wouldn't make so many excuses for askers, and so many judgments against reviewers. You are merely speculating; speculations don't necessarily relate to reality. Maybe so, maybe not, but you do not provide and valid, reasonable argument for your case. It's what you want to believe; we'd get nowhere if each user insisted only on believing what they believe. Feb 2, 2022 at 19:03
• @amWhy Absolutely no judgement made. It's not an excuse, it is a problem that exists. It is you trying to play the same down. Feb 2, 2022 at 19:06
• @amWhy Let me know what context is missing right now. As I see it, there is a clarification of what $i$ is, and a need for an extension of the differentiation operator with certain complex arguments. Is that not "enough" context? If it isn't, then you need to tell me what more could have been added. Otherwise, it should be reopened, simple and straightforward. The point I'm trying to make is that what I believe reviewers want is motivation and a "reason" for asking the question, but if there's context apart from it then I don't see why it shouldn't be reopened, right now. Feb 2, 2022 at 19:12
• I am not adding anything : I'll be recommending the user to add it. I spoke to them over at Constructive Feedback. Finally "don't add context" if people want to context-rewrite and rescue the question, they are free to do it. It is a different point that I will not do it. If I'm "speculating" then go on and tell me what "context" is missing right now, please. What more of what you would expect to see. Feb 2, 2022 at 19:15
• @amWhy From no savior/helper point of view : what context is this question missing right now? IF it is motivation, then my first comment stands, and wasn't speculation. I've read your comment, in full, and I see nowhere, absolutely nowhere, an assertion of the form "XYZ context is missing from this question, and I want it there". As for the savior argument, that is a distraction : focus on this question right now. Feb 2, 2022 at 19:23