0
\$\begingroup\$

https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/272895/looking-for-ic-schematic-that-can-output-modulated-signal-of-8-bits-repeatedly

If neither a part recommendation nor a schematic would be a valid answer, as the comments seem to imply, then it's extremely difficult to phrase this question about generating sequences.

I'll admit that it's under-specified as written. But if we need extra information from a newbie question, then could we just ask for it, politely, please?

I'd also like to clarify whether part recommendations are really off-topic, especially when the answer might be one of the long-standing part families like 74 or 2N.

\$\endgroup\$
2
  • \$\begingroup\$ The link is dead. \$\endgroup\$
    – Voltage Spike Mod
    Commented Dec 9, 2016 at 17:03
  • \$\begingroup\$ People should learn how to use the resources of the internet and distributors sales networks. There is no reason for shopping questions, it deprives people of a necessary engineering experience. Sometimes it can take a week to just the right part for a project. Get to work searching and learn how to do it. \$\endgroup\$
    – Voltage Spike Mod
    Commented Dec 9, 2016 at 17:05

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
3
\$\begingroup\$

IF the question is improved (edited), it can be reopened. If the OP shows no interest in doing that, then closing it early is best.

\$\endgroup\$
2
  • \$\begingroup\$ Yes, although my objection is mostly to the tone of the comments that have already been written there. \$\endgroup\$
    – pjc50
    Commented Dec 8, 2016 at 16:27
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @pjc50 While the opening comment was maybe a bit short, I find I object more to the attitude of the OP following Andy's clarification. Regardless, your issue here seems to be worded more about whether the question should have (temporarily) closed, than to "Could people please be a little more civil in their commented explanations" (which has been addressed here to little or no avail - not a reason to not keep hammering as far as I'm concernced) \$\endgroup\$
    – Asmyldof
    Commented Dec 8, 2016 at 17:22
3
\$\begingroup\$

The problem with your concept of "generosity" is that it favors a single person who hasn't written a good question at the expense of all the volunteers here who look for good questions to answer and spend time answering them.

To be generous to the volunteers, bad questions must be closed quickly. In some cases the OP may come back, address some of the issues, and edit the question. We can then, if it's really warranted, re-open the question.

We definitely don't want a lot of back and forth with someone that can't be bother to read the rules, think about the problem carefully, or express the question clearly. That noises up the site and is the opposite of being generous to those providing value here.

The question you cite is a good example. The OP wrote a bad question, then got pissy about it when he was told so and asked for details. We want to dispense with such questions as quickly and expediently as possible.

The best strategy is to vote to close immediately when a question is bad. If the OP fixes it before 5 close votes accumulate, then the close votes won't have mattered. If, however, as is the norm, the OP never fixes the question, the process has been started and will run to completion as early as possible.

\$\endgroup\$

You must log in to answer this question.

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