-2
\$\begingroup\$

I don't understand why this question has been closed as unclear. On the contrary, when I read it, it seem completely obvious and multiplying circuits are a more or less common topic. It gives a bad impression about the people who decided to close a question when it just seem they were the one unable to understand...

(Edit) : Since there are two answers and I want to reply this to both, I will do it here.

Both mention not wanting to solve homework problem... I agree with the principle of not solving homework problem, but this question have been asked 2 years ago and this aspect is now out of scope and stackexchange is intended to provide quality content for ALL users and not only for the asker. In this regard, when the homework situation is invoked, I believe we might delay the answer for a few week or months or even on year, but not close it.

I found this question by googling on the same problem, and this situation is quite frustrating - and by the way, this is not the first time I see such a situation and it was not usually because of the homework context but gave more of the feeling people didn't understood or even in some case, that they down-voted it by frustration that their over-simplistic answer was not accepted

\$\endgroup\$
7
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ This was a bad question. If you have an actual, specific requirement to square an analog signal, and want to post the full details of that requirement in your own question, you could consider doing so. But be prepared to explain the nature of the signal, bandwidth, tolerable error - and explain what the overall goal and ultimate output is. Don't forget to include what you have already considered. Otherwise another incomplete question would only be closed as well. And an "I want to avoid a digital solution" that is not justified with sound reasons will not go over well. \$\endgroup\$
    – Chris Stratton
    Aug 4, 2019 at 5:49
  • \$\begingroup\$ ...and then you went and posted your own bad question with all the same flaws anyway electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/451817/… \$\endgroup\$
    – Chris Stratton
    Aug 6, 2019 at 14:45
  • \$\begingroup\$ Why should you decide that because YOU are not interested in this topic, it shouldn't be good for any other people ? \$\endgroup\$
    – Camion
    Aug 6, 2019 at 14:50
  • \$\begingroup\$ If you don't like the topic of analog computing, at least admit that it is useful for educational purposes. \$\endgroup\$
    – Camion
    Aug 6, 2019 at 15:10
  • \$\begingroup\$ The issue is not the topic, the issue is that you still do not understand that SE has a requirement for specific answerability which is being utterly failed. If you want to have an open ended discussion about a topic (in this case various analog multiplication techniques) you need to go to a discussion forum, which this is not. eevblog forum could be possibility. \$\endgroup\$
    – Chris Stratton
    Aug 6, 2019 at 15:19
  • \$\begingroup\$ I do not want an open ended question. I wan't information about how to make a squaring amplifier for analog computing (which can be used for educational purposes). \$\endgroup\$
    – Camion
    Aug 6, 2019 at 15:36
  • \$\begingroup\$ Untrue, until you've stated a specific requirement (with actual performance needs that could rule various techniques in and out) what you are asking for is in fact an open-ended discussion. \$\endgroup\$
    – Chris Stratton
    Aug 6, 2019 at 15:39

4 Answers 4

Reset to default
3
\$\begingroup\$

A question is unclear when it lacks the necessary information to discern the goal or the necessary details of the requirement to enable a good answer.

It's not just that the example you picked is an unattempted assignment of a severely underspecified problem, the asker also failed to meaningfully respond to the queries about why squaring was needed and why it needed to be done in the analog domain. In contrast to their assumptions, more experienced engineers immediately start thinking about issues such as filtering out noise, realize that the result is overwhelming likely to be digitized, and thus immediately want to re-order the system as (possible amplification), low pass filter, ADC, digital filtering to select the specific signal of interest, and only then arithmetic squaring. Even in the unlikely event that a result ultimately in the analog domain is needed, converting back is likely going to work better for frequencies of biological interest than trying to build an "analog computer" as might have been done a generation ago would.

As such this is a perfect example of how questions from new posters are often asked with a built-in assumption of a method that is not really best, and the most helpful response is to help the asker get onto a better path. An asker unwilling to provide the actual context of their problem is one who is failing to cooperate with those trying to help.

The asker did get an answer before the question was closed; it might work to a degree, but it is likely to be overly expensive, imprecise, and far from the best solution to meet the ultimate goal of whatever system they are building.

\$\endgroup\$
2
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ All this is something that might be discussed in the answers by showing the limits of a solution. When there is no more details, why not use Ockham's razor and assume that we have the simplest possible situation instead of refusing the discussion because there might be sooo many options that were not mentioned in the question? - And by the way, this might be something that would have been explained by the people wow otherwise can the asker know how to modify his question ? (Here they just mentioned that 250 was not 50² which is quite stupid knowing it just depends on where you place the "1") \$\endgroup\$
    – Camion
    Aug 4, 2019 at 4:12
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Your mistake is in continuing to ignore that the asker failed to meaningful respond to clarifying questions they were asked. In refusing to cooperate they forfeited any chance of a better answer. They had every chance to improve their question, they were told what was missing - and they declined to do so. If their refusal was because they do not themselves have the needed information, that itself is a fatal flaw in the question making its treatment here impossible as a solution is not possible without the involvement of the person who does understand the requirement. \$\endgroup\$
    – Chris Stratton
    Aug 4, 2019 at 5:33
3
\$\begingroup\$

The close menu is pretty bad. Sometimes the "unclear" option is the most convenient, but not the most accurate or precise.

\$\endgroup\$
2
  • \$\begingroup\$ So the vote is even less clearer than the question itself, then. How could people enhance their question if those who voted to close do not even explain why as a comment... ? \$\endgroup\$
    – Camion
    Aug 6, 2019 at 15:11
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Good luck ever getting anything changed around here \$\endgroup\$
    – Voltage Spike Mod
    Aug 7, 2019 at 21:05
1
\$\begingroup\$

That's the standard reason we use when it turns out to be a homework problem, as the OP finally admitted.

We require that the OP show the progress he's made toward a solution, and when that is not provided, the question is incomplete, and therefore "unclear".

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • \$\begingroup\$ I have replied to both answers by editing the question \$\endgroup\$
    – Camion
    Aug 4, 2019 at 4:04
1
\$\begingroup\$

To answer your question generally, and without referring to that specific question you've linked to:
Questions are voted as 'Unclear' when 5 regular members (or 1 moderator) of this site think that it's unclear enough to be closed.

That's it.

There is no committee meeting, no magical formula.

If circumstances change (perhaps the question gets edited to become more clear, either by the OP or by someone else), the question can be nominated to be re-opened.
This often doesn't succeed though, since no-one gets a notification that a question they voted to close has been edited and nominated for re-opening.
Which is really just too bad... Either write a good question to start with, or respond promptly and meaningfully to comments on your question and it's far less likely to be closed.

\$\endgroup\$

You must log in to answer this question.

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