2
\$\begingroup\$

This question was closed because it is nothing but a request for a full design, and has never been edited to be anything but. It violates half of the rules in the help center, particularly:

You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face. Chatty, open-ended questions diminish the usefulness of our site and push other questions off the front page.

and

Your questions should be reasonably scoped. If you can imagine an entire book that answers your question, you’re asking too much.

It's an overall bad fit for the SE format. Why was it reopened?

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Funny, that question doesn't violate either of those quotes. It's not a "you need an entire book" question, and it's a practical, answerable question based on OPs problem. It's not theoretical or speculative question. \$\endgroup\$ – Passerby Mar 20 '15 at 4:48
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ I was wondering this too. It's a blatant gimme da codz question. I voted to close, and I voted to keep it closed after someone tried to re-open it. I was out-voted. Oh well, that's the way it goes in a democracy sometimes. After the uwashed masses won, I even wrote a answer because someone had to point out this was crying out for a microcontroller, and people were mostly talking about using stone knives, bear skins, and 666 timers. \$\endgroup\$ – Olin Lathrop Mar 20 '15 at 13:51
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @OlinLathrop One more victory for the help vampires... \$\endgroup\$ – Matt Young Mar 20 '15 at 13:52
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @MattYoung The help vampires already won. Closing it now is like closing the barn door after the horses have escaped (and Olin's answer is like throwing the sheep out before you close the door). \$\endgroup\$ – W5VO Mar 20 '15 at 20:23
  • \$\begingroup\$ If there weren't any answers on it, then I wouldn't have an issue keeping it closed. \$\endgroup\$ – W5VO Mar 20 '15 at 20:24
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Folks, help vampires never win. Stop trying to punish them. Life already punished them enough (making them what they are) and the world will continue to do so until they find something else to make a living, that they are actually good at. Or they will die trying to suck blood out of others, and will be unhappy. Either way, the question has been posted, there are 3 or 4 great answers for it, and the whole page will be helpful for others. I think our job is done in this case. \$\endgroup\$ – Ricardo Mar 20 '15 at 20:34
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Ricardo If you think help vampires never win, you either don't understand what they are, or are lying to yourself. \$\endgroup\$ – Matt Young Mar 20 '15 at 20:36
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Matt - maybe of our definition of winning is different, but I know what you mean. My point is that you guys have got to stop trying to punish them. You aren't achieving anything by trying to close their questions or throwing angry or snarky comments at them. \$\endgroup\$ – Ricardo Mar 20 '15 at 20:41
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Ricardo What you're saying is exactly the problem. Help vampires are like cockroaches. If you don't dispatch them quickly, they multiply. Next thing you know, you have a community that appears to be active, but is really just trivial drivel. (ie. calculating LED current limiting resistor, over and over and over) Allowing questions like the one we're discussing is a big step in letting them take over. I come here for the high SNR electronics discussion, which I can't really get offline. I would hate to lose this community to help vampires. \$\endgroup\$ – Matt Young Mar 20 '15 at 21:58
  • \$\begingroup\$ Well, you have a good point. It took me a while to realize why shopping questions were banned, but after a while I started imagining how the site would look like if we let those questions in - it would be crowded with "what's a replacement for this or that" type of questions. I suppose it's the same deal with these questions (gimme the code - too broad ones, repair questions etc.) \$\endgroup\$ – Ricardo Mar 20 '15 at 22:40
  • \$\begingroup\$ @MattYoung we won't ever have questions asked over and over again: we have the duplicates system. \$\endgroup\$ – user17592 Mar 21 '15 at 8:19
1
\$\begingroup\$

In general, Dave's answer applies.

The answers to this question in particular show that it, when interpreted properly, does not have to be too broad. The answers don't describe all possible options, and not all describe a complete circuit, but they do help the OP. Nothing wrong with that.

You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face. Chatty, open-ended questions diminish the usefulness of our site and push other questions off the front page.

The question is practical and (as the answers demonstrate) answerable.

Your questions should be reasonably scoped. If you can imagine an entire book that answers your question, you’re asking too much.

Again, the answers demonstrate that this reason does not apply.

\$\endgroup\$
0
\$\begingroup\$

It was reopened by having enough of the community reviewers voting to do so. That's how community review works.

Of course, you, as a reviewer yourself, can vote to close it again, but at this point, it will be an uphill battle.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ If I could vote to close it again I would. The option isn't available. \$\endgroup\$ – Matt Young Mar 19 '15 at 15:52
  • \$\begingroup\$ Yes, the system puts a limit on how many times you can vote on any particular item. \$\endgroup\$ – Dave Tweed Mar 19 '15 at 15:54
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ The question still remains why such a bad question was reopened. Who did it? Close votes are not anonymous, why are reopen votes? \$\endgroup\$ – Matt Young Mar 19 '15 at 15:55
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Because the information isn't relevant. At this point, you know that approximately the same number of people felt it should be reopened as the number of people who felt it should be closed. You can probably infer who's who by reading the comments. \$\endgroup\$ – Dave Tweed Mar 19 '15 at 16:07
  • \$\begingroup\$ Actually, you only get one close vote and one open vote for each question - once you use it, you can't vote on it again. (unless you're a mod) \$\endgroup\$ – W5VO Mar 19 '15 at 16:08
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ The question was reopen because many people despise the anti-newbie hate around here. \$\endgroup\$ – Passerby Mar 20 '15 at 4:49
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ This is completely ridiculous. This discussion has emerged to the point some people can't look at it clearly anymore. This answer which is merely stating the bloody obvious facts about how this site works received three downvotes! I can't make sense of that anymore. \$\endgroup\$ – user17592 Mar 20 '15 at 21:54
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Camil I can't speak for others, but I downvoted this "answer" because it simply states how and not why the question was reopened. As such, it doesn't make any attempt to answer the original question at all. Your own answer is far more useful as an answer to the question. \$\endgroup\$ – brhans Mar 24 '15 at 18:58
-1
\$\begingroup\$

I cast the final reopen vote after 3 other users voted to reopen. Personally, as a mod, I am more inclined to reopen questions as we still don't have that many people voting to reopen here. It's certainly not the best question, but all things considered it's not that bad, nor are the answers provided.

To directly answer your points, I seriously doubt an entire book could be written on the topic, or too much more past what is already in the existing answers. Sure you could come up with a bunch of Rube Goldberg circuits to try and prove me wrong, and there may be a couple analog + digital hybrid circuits that would also do the job, but most that I can think of would be hard pressed to beat one IC.

You could argue the practicality, but the answers show that it's reasonably practical to implement. Again, the multiple answers show that the question is answerable. You often can't prove the "problems that you face" clause, but I don't think that's what you're getting at. Finally, at 2 lines, the question is hardly "chatty" - it's relatively clear and concise.

It doesn't even mention Arduinos! (j/k)

\$\endgroup\$
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ The objection to the question was not that it was too broad, not a real problem, or that it mentioned "arduino". I agree it was fine on all three of those counts. It was a blatant gimme da codz question. It's a bad precident to have the OP get the desired result from that kind of question. \$\endgroup\$ – Olin Lathrop Mar 20 '15 at 13:55
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @OlinLathrop I don't know why you think you have a leg to stand on here when you answered the question yourself! \$\endgroup\$ – W5VO Mar 20 '15 at 16:14
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ We do so have enough people voting to reopen. Questions that are worth reopening get reopened. If the OP goes back and fixes the problems, I'll always reopen. That was not the case here. The question sucks and has never been edited. You short circuited the community review process, and I have a problem with that. \$\endgroup\$ – Matt Young Mar 20 '15 at 17:11
  • \$\begingroup\$ I only answered the question after I cast all the votes I could to close it and keep it closed. I lost the election (at the time I didn't realize a mod unilaterally re-opened the question). At that point I might as well provide a good answer, seeing as the existing ones had problems. \$\endgroup\$ – Olin Lathrop Mar 20 '15 at 18:44
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @OlinLathrop Saying that I unilaterally reopened the question is incorrect. \$\endgroup\$ – W5VO Mar 20 '15 at 20:18

You must log in to answer this question.

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