I just got this as an audit in the close vote queue and voted it for closure because of 'Missing context or other details'. To me this looks like one of these common homework questions that lack significant effort, but obviously I am wrong on this one, also judging by the upvotes. Not trying to point fingers at anyone, just genuinely curious as I really can't tell the difference here. So I guess my question is: What differs this question from the low effort questions we get dozens of every day?
11
-
1$\begingroup$ Perhaps the tag (context) would be suitable for this question? Maybe (specific-question, too? Here is a direct link to the review audit: math.stackexchange.com/review/close/2001358 $\endgroup$– Martin SleziakAug 24 at 9:26
-
17$\begingroup$ I think it's because people think higher level questions should be given some slack in terms of how much effort/context/background needs to be shown. Partially because such askers already know the basics and self-study/research more than some college undergraduates who find shortcuts by expecting us to do their homework for them. I've also noticed, especially in posts about proving inequalities and evaluating series and integrals, that people tend to overlook some rules needed to determine what constitutes a good post or not. $\endgroup$– AcceleratorAug 24 at 9:30
-
4$\begingroup$ The question is closed now (rightfully imho). This was probably one of those incomprehensible audits that happen sometimes. $\endgroup$– Kurt G.Aug 24 at 14:52
-
1$\begingroup$ @Kurt, yes, the question is closed, but as a duplicate, not as "missing context...". $\endgroup$– Gerry MyersonAug 24 at 23:03
-
2$\begingroup$ So that is a duplicate and missing context. $\endgroup$– HayatsuAug 25 at 0:11
-
$\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson , it would be interesting to know if that would have made a difference in the audit. Would Klaus have passed if he had clicked it as duplicate? $\endgroup$– Kurt G.Aug 25 at 3:55
-
1$\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson I can confirm that 50% of the votes were for "missing context"... $\endgroup$– user1729Aug 25 at 7:40
-
$\begingroup$ @Kurt, sorry, I don't know how the audit would handle that. $\endgroup$– Gerry MyersonAug 25 at 23:03
-
1$\begingroup$ Does this help? $\endgroup$– D SAug 28 at 15:39
-
4$\begingroup$ While a question may have "assumed" context from its level of expertise I would argue that it is still necessary for the asker to provide some level of background. $\endgroup$– bobeyt6Sep 4 at 21:33
-
1$\begingroup$ Thanks everyone for commenting. I consider this question answered pretty much. @Accelerator If you be so kind to post your comment as an answer, I'll gladly accept it. $\endgroup$– KlausSep 5 at 7:46
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
I post @Accelerator's comment as an answer in order to get the question off the queue:
I think it's because people think higher level questions should be given some slack in terms of how much effort/context/background needs to be shown. Partially because such askers already know the basics and self-study/research more than some college undergraduates who find shortcuts by expecting us to do their homework for them. I've also noticed, especially in posts about proving inequalities and evaluating series and integrals, that people tend to overlook some rules needed to determine what constitutes a good post or not.