I would like to inquire about the closure of this question which Kortuk, singlehandedly, executed.

I find the closure description "closed as not constructive" less than helpful, and I would have appreciated a comment from Kortuk.

Also, why isn't the "five close votes rule" applied here, where the question isn't obvious spam, nonsense, obscene, etc. ?

Finally, I would like to point out that the Computer Science StackExchange has a similar question that was not deemed inappropriate (and was greatly appreciated).

  • \$\begingroup\$ I edited the original question to be more inline with what EE.SE is all about. Then I voted to reopen. It needs 3 more votes to actually be opened. Once it's open, I'll give it an answer. \$\endgroup\$ – user3624 Aug 10 '12 at 17:05
  • \$\begingroup\$ @randomblue, what are you looking for here, the version david wrote or a list of papers that are fun to read? \$\endgroup\$ – Kortuk Aug 10 '12 at 18:23
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Kortuk: No, I'm not looking after fun. Rather for theoretical leaders in electronics, in search of "intuition", maybe. \$\endgroup\$ – Randomblue Aug 10 '12 at 18:52
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Randomblue Let me reword that, are you looking for a list of papers or asking about how electronics normally advance? \$\endgroup\$ – Kortuk Aug 10 '12 at 20:37
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Kortuk: Both. How electronics advances, with good examples at hand. \$\endgroup\$ – Randomblue Aug 11 '12 at 13:11
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Randomblue, your new version of the question makes that much more clear, and I like it. The first revision seemed to have only one primary question, which was "list papers," with the rest seeming to be reasons you would like them listed. I received flags and acted, as W5VO explained. Sorry for the closure, but it has definitely resulted in a better question, while the first was just getting some article listings as answers without answering your core question. \$\endgroup\$ – Kortuk Aug 11 '12 at 14:12

List questions are generally not constructive questions for our site. They can be incomplete, out-of-date, and there can be a lot of noise. They are questions with "no right answer", so they are a bad fit for our site where the goal is to find one right answer. See the FAQ for more guidance on questions that are not good fits here.

This is a generic StackExchange policy, but it is open to discussion in Meta. If you (or anyone) thinks that we should change this policy, then we need to have a public discussion and come to a consensus. Your example from CStheory is permitted on that site because they feel those questions are necessary for their site to function.

The "5 Vote Rule" is a method of involving the community in moderation duties, such as closing questions. On borderline questions, a mod might defer their binding vote until more users vote, but this is up to their discretion. Also, keep in mind that while only one moderator's name shows up, that doesn't mean that other moderators can't agree with the action as well, or that there was no other community input. Would you feel better if five mods closed your question? Personally, if I think that a question fits one of the close reasons, I will close it.

The other part of your question is subjective (in my opinion) so I'm not planning on voting to re-open.


Answering the question in your third sentence: Moderator votes are "one and done". That is, it only takes one mod vote to close/reopen/delete/... whatever.

  • \$\begingroup\$ They like to use the word, "Binding". But yes, you have it, we always finish the vote. \$\endgroup\$ – Kortuk Aug 10 '12 at 18:27
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Which is a serious design flaw, as moderators tend to be people with an itch take action, rather than let the community process work over time, perhaps to greater wisdom. If the mods waited to see other's input, they might be reversed less often. \$\endgroup\$ – Chris Stratton Aug 11 '12 at 1:21
  • \$\begingroup\$ @ChrisStratton I don't mind having my votes reversed at all - that is a normal function of the site. As it stands, very few people vote to close bad questions, so that is something that ends up falling to the moderators. Finally, even though only Kortuk shows up as closing the question, he did not act without community input. \$\endgroup\$ – W5VO Aug 11 '12 at 15:40
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @ChrisStratton If we end up getting reversed a lot, then that would lead to a meta discussion on the issue so that we (the mods) can understand the community's wishes better. There are only a few hard and fast rules that cannot be changed. The moderators serve the community, and we act in ways that we believe benefits the community, and we rely on feedback from the community to judge our actions. \$\endgroup\$ – W5VO Aug 11 '12 at 15:44
  • \$\begingroup\$ @ChrisStratton Closing is a process intended to be reversible, close the question until it is improved, then it is reopened. As sites get more and more users whom have enough rep to vote themselves our job when it comes to closing will become more of someone to moderate when something goes wrong. If you feel this should be changed though, post on meta.stackoverflow and suggest that this feature is changed. If you convince the SE community they will change it. \$\endgroup\$ – Kortuk Aug 11 '12 at 15:52
  • \$\begingroup\$ @W5VO Missed that you had comments when I posted. Yes, I forgot to mention there were multiple flags as not contructive, the question just needed to be cleaned up, which it was and reopened. \$\endgroup\$ – Kortuk Aug 11 '12 at 15:53
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Kortuk You would ultimately see more community involvement in moderation if you were to reserve usage of your superpowers to combat things like commercial spamming and name calling. When you act so quickly and frequently, it removes the role of community action, and also discourages it by creating the general sense that too many questions are being closed. There's also your continuing failure to understand the psychological slap-in-the-face effect of closing someone's question. Changing your mind later really can't undo that. \$\endgroup\$ – Chris Stratton Aug 11 '12 at 22:03
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @ChrisStratton I disagree with almost everything, and those that run the system have taught me that most of what you have said is not true from how it has acted on other sites, but you are entitled to your opinion. I was stopping this question before it exploded since it is the kind of question that gets TONS of answers that are useless once the question is clarified. \$\endgroup\$ – Kortuk Aug 11 '12 at 22:05
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Kortuk - it's the unhealthy obsession with the possibility of their being useless information on the site which is your undoing - and in the process, you exclude a lot of unrecognized relevance and drive contributors away. Learn to read things of interest and ignore the rest; you will have a much smoother time on the internet, including the stackexchange sites. Perhaps someday you will learn that you can have a better site only be acting less often. \$\endgroup\$ – Chris Stratton Aug 11 '12 at 22:06
  • \$\begingroup\$ @ChrisStratton: While I agree that this site closes questions more often (and for more nit-picky reasons), I don't think that Kortuk (or any moderator) is the problem. More often than not, he does act in accordance with the community. It's the community that is the problem, not the moderators. I've noticed that, compared to other SE sites, this one is far more "exclusive". That is, it is really easy for one to ask a question that is slightly off and get blasted with comments (sometimes snarky comments). That's the real problem: a lot of people on here have unrealistic standards. \$\endgroup\$ – Chris Laplante Aug 12 '12 at 1:19
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ E.g. no schematic? Instant close votes. Didn't define an acronym? We can't be bothered to use Google, so queue the complaints. Many users on here either feel like they were called upon to correct the internet conduct of others, or that it's the OPs honor to have their question answered, so why should I have to add a link to a datasheet, or do some independent research? I'm sure other SE sites are like that, but contrast that to SO, which is a much more friendly atmosphere. Lesson: blame the users, not the moderators. The moderators simply echo the wills of the people, as described above. \$\endgroup\$ – Chris Laplante Aug 12 '12 at 1:30
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I know that a lot of crap questions get posted here. However, I've also seen a lot of questions from those that are new to electronics get closed for one of the aforementioned reasons. Someone new to electronics (or anything for that matter) is trying to build confidence. There's no better way to discourage such a user than roasting them on their first question. Many of these questions are salvageable if the community is willing to take the time (to add links, inline images, etc). I've not seen many users take the initiative to do so. And that's the real problem, to me. /rant \$\endgroup\$ – Chris Laplante Aug 12 '12 at 1:48
  • \$\begingroup\$ @SimpleCoder This would be a good topic for a separate Meta post. The comments section is not a really good place for the extended discussion this topic needs. \$\endgroup\$ – W5VO Aug 12 '12 at 6:32
  • \$\begingroup\$ @SimpleCoder Also note previous discussion on the topic: meta.electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/770/… \$\endgroup\$ – W5VO Aug 12 '12 at 6:43
  • \$\begingroup\$ @W5VO: Good idea - I'll shut up :) If anyone is interested in chatting about it, just ping me into chat. I might not be available for a bit though. \$\endgroup\$ – Chris Laplante Aug 12 '12 at 16:03

You must log in to answer this question.

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