A question of mine recently got closed for "needs details or clarity". I don't see what I could change to make it clearer and the person(s) who closed didn't provide any insight.
What can be changed to make it clearer?
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
10
-
2$\begingroup$ @lulu sure but some people seem to think it shouldn't (hence a new vote to close) so I'd like to know why. $\endgroup$– Anne AunymeCommented Aug 4 at 4:12
-
1$\begingroup$ We could only speculate regarding the reason for the down and close votes. If you want a suggestion: add some discussion. The case $B=F$ is well known, maybe describe that? What if $B=2F$? Is that qualitatively different from $B=(1+\epsilon)F$? Simulated results are always of interest. As I say, just speculating. $\endgroup$– luluCommented Aug 4 at 9:59
-
1$\begingroup$ For what it's worth, virtually every MathSE posted question that I have seen, that followed this article on MathSE protocol has been upvoted rather than downvoted. I am not necessarily advocating this protocol. Instead, I am merely stating a fact: if you scrupulously follow the linked article, skipping/omitting nothing, you virtually guarantee a positive response. $\endgroup$– user2661923Commented Aug 5 at 21:46
-
$\begingroup$ aaand.... it's closed again for a different motive (but in a way that suggests the closer didn't read my question until the end). This is quite frustrating. $\endgroup$– Anne AunymeCommented Aug 6 at 13:47
-
$\begingroup$ @user2661923 this protocol may work well for most people but I think some of the steps are simply not possible for me. "show all of your work, in excruciating detail" -> this would require writing a hundred-pages book and most of it would just confuse you as it would be the case for all questions I ask here. $\endgroup$– Anne AunymeCommented Aug 6 at 14:07
-
$\begingroup$ @AnneAunyme Fair rebuttal. However, you could summarize the results, so that knowledgeable reviewers could follow your analysis step by step. Also, you are (perhaps) misinterpreting my comment. I am not advocating that protocol. Instead, I am merely indicating what defensive measure is guaranteed to work. If you don't follow the protocol article, maybe your question gets answered anyway, and maybe it doesn't. ...see next comment $\endgroup$– user2661923Commented Aug 6 at 18:26
-
1$\begingroup$ @AnneAunyme Further, the objection that you indicate doesn't really apply to the majority of the protocol article. If you re-read it, you will find that showing your work is only a small part of showing context. $\endgroup$– user2661923Commented Aug 6 at 18:26
-
1$\begingroup$ @user2661923 Sure but similar objections can be made for a significant part of the rest. I won't deny there is still some actionable stuff there though. And now apparently someone wants to delete my question... $\endgroup$– Anne AunymeCommented Aug 7 at 3:35
-
$\begingroup$ This question is similar to: Requests for Reopen & Undeletion Votes (volume 01/2022 - today). If you believe it’s different, please edit the question, make it clear how it’s different and/or how the answers on that question are not helpful for your problem. $\endgroup$– amWhyCommented Aug 16 at 23:29
-
$\begingroup$ @amWhy I did that 12 days ago. (assuming you are talking about this question: math.stackexchange.com/questions/4531920/…) $\endgroup$– Anne AunymeCommented Aug 18 at 3:11
Add a comment
|