4
\$\begingroup\$

I just posted a question on EE. I am not used to this peculiar SE guidelines, where could I found it if any.

I have received few comments from an user that I do not completely understand. I also found myself a bit uncomfortable about the path he used.

What should I do in order to improve my question. Is it just about the page citation? Or is there something else to improve that I have missed?

Thank you,

Update

Having the above user commenting again:

Page 81 does not have the schematic you eventually embedded in your question. That appears to be on another page entirely. I downvoted you because your incompetence wasted time and you argued about it and you didn't fix your question. Your question is still not fixed. This isn't rocket science, it's plain common sense.

I post what I do see in one of my PDF reader:

Look what there is on page 81

Other PDF readers also agreed. From this now I can understand that it is not my question which has a problem. And I do feel very unconformable about the words he is having with me.

Update 2

Having time to chill out about this meta, I just want you to add some inputs:

  • All users are not native speakers, and this can be a great challenge at some point, for this kind of fora. I am part of it, English is not my mother tongue;
  • Sometimes you do not understand why someone does not understand what you are talking about. It just happens, like it happened with this Q&A. I think the reason why is mainly because we do think in different ways, and this is also a great challenge not an incompetence. The inefficiency is to stick to the problem and miss all possible solutions. I am glad, because I have understood where the misunderstanding resided;
  • There are users when they browse a 300 pages PDF that let them go to ease of a search bar or page indexing instead of looking for footpage numbers (that's what led to this misunderstanding, I have learnt from it). Personally, I do read huge books and PDF and I manage them differently. I used PDF page index because I thought it was easier, I just skipped (it literally goes out of my mind) the footpage number, but I did mention the section number, as I ever do when I want to keep a reference;
  • I don't think my reference was that incomplete (now updated to comply both footpage number and page indexing). I had also first linked the section number because I knew, as scientist, that references are important. Section tree may have led some user to find the page I was talking about. So I do not feel incompetent about this peculiar reference. What I felt was misunderstanding and some ardor or zeal from another user. Anyway, the most important is the quality of the information, not how it arose. Now fixed, we can go forward;
  • Clearly, people do have different standards, they also do have different habits, manners and ways to behave;
  • Finally, politeness and humility are good qualities. We should never lose them. I should not have used the word binary in this context, but I did. I apology for that.
\$\endgroup\$
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ I would just like to comment that you handled the (valid but maybe harsh) criticism much better than most users in the same situation. You also wrote this "omg a user downvoted me"-meta question in a far less aggressive way, likely leading to a very successful outcome for everyone. \$\endgroup\$ – pipe Jun 15 '18 at 12:47
  • \$\begingroup\$ Page 81 does not have the schematic you eventually embedded in your question. That appears to be on another page entirely. I downvoted you because your incompetence wasted time and you argued about it and you didn't fix your question. Your question is still not fixed. This isn't rocket science, it's plain common sense. \$\endgroup\$ – Andy aka Jun 22 '18 at 10:02
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Andyaka If you take time to read the complete Question & Answer you will see that it is the only schematic available, that I have asked other schematic from the manufacturer, that other users with high reputation do find this question and answer compliant and useful. Now your are responsive for wasting your time arguing about P.81 and not considering anything else. I don't understand what you mean by rocket sciences, but I do find you very binary for someone who likes analogue filters. I suggests you to get a decent PDF reader where pages are properly linked. Have a good day. \$\endgroup\$ – jlandercy Jun 22 '18 at 10:32
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Page numbers are printed at the bottom of each page so I can't really see how changing my pdf viewer will make a difference. Fix your question please. Even the answer below is saying the content isn't on page 81 (missing contents). \$\endgroup\$ – Andy aka Jun 22 '18 at 10:47
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Andyaka Finally I understand what you are asking, question edited according to your remark. For sure that was the biggest issue in my post and it clearly stands for incompetence of mine. Anyway, it does not change anything about how you behave. Hint: next time you see a post of mine, just skip it, it does not deserve your high levels skills and your prose. \$\endgroup\$ – jlandercy Jun 22 '18 at 10:57
  • \$\begingroup\$ The lesson here is when someone gives you a page number of an electrically scanned document, as with the word bicentennial there's two possible references, and if you don't clearly if that's twice a year or every other year, you've made an ass out of u and me. \$\endgroup\$ – Mazura Jun 23 '18 at 19:25
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I've seen your edit. Honestly, I'm with you, and seeing from the votes of your question here on meta, the votes on the comments, the votes on the original question, and those on your answer, I think a lot of people do too. But now, I really think you shouldn't focus on that anymore. And you don't have to justify yourself on what happened: you did right. The few half-mistakes you did have been corrected as soon as you could, which was perfect. Don't let this incident grate on you. \$\endgroup\$ – dim Jun 29 '18 at 20:47
6
\$\begingroup\$

Here is what I think was missing in the question:

  • The inclusion of the contents of page 81, instead of just a reference (now fixed)
  • A few words of explanation on what is a "Adam 4055 module". You provided the link, which is good, but it isn't enough. Just like the missing contents of page 81, you need to explain, with just a few words, what this thing is, so we know the context without having to follow links.

Basically, you need to explain within the question itself (not through links), the general context of the question. You can assume that people know what a resistor is, what a microcontroller is, etc..., but you can't assume we know what a "Adam 4055 module" is. And give this information at once, because if we need to follow links, people will consider the question isn't complete. The principle is that every question should be self-sufficient. Providing links is good (and if you don't provide datasheet links, sometimes, people will get upset too), but enough explicit information within the question text itself is essential. Same for acronyms (some people ask questions with lots of acronyms). Except for a few, like "MCU", you need to be explicit, because they may have multiple meanings, and it can quickly get ambiguous.

For more information, here are the things you generally need to take care of, when asking a question: Electrical Engineering Question Checklist

But overall, the question isn't that bad. What is good about it, for example, is the fact that you explained what you think the solution is, and clearly explained the difference between your setup and the example setup given within the product documentation.

So, even if it is a basic question, I don't consider it a bad one, and I wouldn't downvote that myself, even in its original state (but different people have different standards).

So, don't focus on a single downvote. It may even be reverted by an upvote...

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Wow, I had no idea about that checklist, awesome. \$\endgroup\$ – pipe Jun 15 '18 at 12:54
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @pipe You have no idea how many hours I wasted, randomly browsing meta... \$\endgroup\$ – dim Jun 15 '18 at 13:16
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @dim Thank you for answering. I will improve this post next week (and maybe find more information) and follow your advice not focus on a single vote. Good to know about the checklist, my next post will better. \$\endgroup\$ – jlandercy Jun 16 '18 at 7:14

You must log in to answer this question.

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