Here is a question with some geometric construction to get some approximate length :

Approximating the length of a circular arc using geometrical construction. How does it work?

I tried that method given there & my Interim Conclusion is that the method given is not working.

Why is that a reason to mark my answer for deletion ?

Should I tweak the method to make it work ?
Should I tweak the answer to generate a wrong conclusion ?

I am not asking why my answer was downvoted [ though such feedback will be useful ]
I am merely asking what is wrong in my answer.


1 Answer 1


It seems there was nothing inherently wrong with my answer.

My answer has been vindicated , because the OP was able to somehow take my content (with acknowledgement , no worries) & work further (which I could not do earlier because of the unnecessary diversion with Meta Post & Demotivation) & even got few upvotes , contradicting the donwvotes to my answer.

I feel the MODS ( wrong word , I wanted to say "chronic enthusiastic deleters/downvoters whose default action is to delete/downvote" ) could do a better job :

  • control the urge to delete / close / downvote stuff
  • not hastily delete stuff willy nilly
  • give some feedback to deletion targets
  • wait for response
  • use deletion as the last resort

That is my Opinion.

  • $\begingroup$ I agree that there is no quality control on (for example) reviewers voting to delete. However, I think that the idea that mods could supervise this is a non-starter; you can't ask a mod to work 50 hours per day. A better resolution is either having the original poster raise the issue on meta (i.e "should this question have received a vote to delete") or for the original poster to raise the issue on chat stack exchange. Either option generally requires the original poster to take the initiative, which seems to me to be the only practical approach. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 3 at 18:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks for the feedback , @user2661923 , I used the wrong word there. I was not talking about MODS , only those who vote to delete. I think that those who vote to delete should leave a comment , which will let OP respond & that response may prompt retracting the vote to delete ! $\endgroup$
    – Prem
    Commented Jun 3 at 18:16
  • $\begingroup$ That is also a non-starter. Just as there is no quality control on downvoting, voting to close, or voting to delete, there is no quality control on the negative voter leaving an explanatory comment. So, your suggestion is akin to indicating that you don't think that any MathSE question poster should ever post a low quality question. The issue has been discussed, in years past, more than once on MathSE. Borderline-discourteous reactions are simply a fact of life on MathSE, and the issue of whether non-commented negative reactions are discourteous is itself somewhat iffy. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 3 at 18:20
  • $\begingroup$ (1) Deleting/Downvoting without reading is common because it is low effort. (2) Nobody can control downvoting , though showing that vote count can be delayed (on new questions & new answers) to not bias others. (3) Deletion votes can be recorded , while delaying the actual deletion by a day (eg) to let others read/vote the new Post. The Delete voters can be notified when the Post is edited/upvoted. That will inform the Delete voters whether that Deletion vote still stands , giving a chance to retract. (4) I know that I & you , @user2661923 , discussing it will not change things. Oh well !! $\endgroup$
    – Prem
    Commented Jun 3 at 18:51
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @user2661923 One shouldn't ask about (deletion) votes on meta. Instead if one believes the post should be undeleted then one can post a reasoned request for such in the meta request thread. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 3 at 19:02
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @BillDubuque Perhaps it is my fault for being unclear, as I was criticizing the various suggestions of Prem. For me personally, the issue isn't lack of quality control on delete votes, but instead the widespread custom that when you are the first to give a negative reaction (i.e. downvote, vote to delete, vote to close), you do not simultaneously give an explanatory comment, perhaps referring to a protocol article. In my opinion, if such a custom were to become widespread, the quality control issue would be partially remedied. ...see next comment $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 3 at 19:41
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @BillDubuque That is, when a reviewer attempts to justify their reaction with an explanatory comment, it gives the reviewer a moment of pause, where they (perhaps) think more carefully about what they are doing. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 3 at 19:42
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @user2661923 I do agree that frequently many site moderation actions are made in haste (e.g. the well-known roboreviews). Unfortunately there is little that can be done to remedy that. This is one of the reasons I created the original meta Request for Reopen... thread many years ago (that predated the review queues). $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 3 at 19:47

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