Engineering close reason discussion

ManishEarth

Jul 9, 2013 18:09

Also, engineering questions: worthy of a close reason?

user54412

non-VTC-enabled people have to choose something, and we don't have a generic "this is just off topic" reason

Gugg

What's the origin/reason of including 1's in a series of !'s ("!!!!!11111!!!!11!1!1!")?

ManishEarth

AFAICT the generic close reason won't usually be needed.

@Gugg knowyourmeme.com/memes/the-1-phenomenon

David Zaslavsky

@ManishEarth We could put one in the list and always deactivate it later

ManishEarth

@DavidZaslavsky Yep. I bet we can data.se the close reasons

user54412

Jul 9, 2013 18:11

hmmm, perhaps we can come to an understanding that flagging is primarily to get it into the queue - the VTC people can take over handling spelling out the exact reason - just a suggestion

user54412

speaking of @tpg2114 ...

ManishEarth

@ChrisWhite so basically flag with any random reason?

user54412

@ManishEarth would that hurt things?

ManishEarth

@ChrisWhite not really

IIRC close voters don't even get to see which off topic subreason was used by flaggers

user54412

I'm trying to remember - when a question has been flagged but not yet voted to be closed, what does the review queue say? I think it doesn't even tell my why it was flagged

user54412

Jul 9, 2013 18:13

what @ManishEarth said

ManishEarth

@ChrisWhite It only says "off topic", "too broad", etc

tpg2114

Sorry I'm late, trying to catch up on what I missed...

user54412

@tpg2114 oh, there's a lot

Crazy Buddy

@tpg2114 A lot..!

ManishEarth

@ChrisWhite Check out physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/19172

user54412

Jul 9, 2013 18:14

summary - we chose wording for HW and non-mainstream, got rid of math (since there's a migration path), and are now debating the third off-topic close reason

ManishEarth

Btw guys, I'm posting the proposed reasons on meta as we finalize them

3

Q: Chat session to discuss and possibly finalize close reasons

We have a bunch of proposed close reasons here, and there recently have been a few more good ones brought up there (Like Chris' alternative homework close reason or tpg's "engineering" close reason). We need to have some consensus for these, so we'll hold an extra chat session next Tuesday at 16...

votez plz

tpg2114

Okay, got it... Thanks

Crazy Buddy

Looks like our community is really doing the reviewing..! (especially close votes)

I didn't review today (and, I see that there are 14 in the queue) o_O

ManishEarth

Homework Close reason discussion

2 hours ago, 45 minutes total – 195 messages, 5 users, 0 stars

Bookmarked 17 secs ago by ManishEarth

45 minutes. wow

tpg2114

I would propose some sort of other catch-all like "Doesn't fit into the types of questions in our FAQ" for the 3rd type so the flags show up in the review queue unlike custom messages that only go to mods

I would rather see that than an "Primarily engineering based" reason

ManishEarth

Jul 9, 2013 18:17

Non Mainstream Physics close reason discussion

1 hour ago, 56 minutes total – 167 messages, 5 users, 3 stars

Bookmarked 4 secs ago by ManishEarth

user54412

points to remember: (1) we can petition to have a 4th reason - SO has 5 already

user54412

user54412

(2) we can abuse flags and just have flagging people use any flag to get it into the queue, let the VTC people figure out a good reason

Crazy Buddy

@ChrisWhite Physics.SE vs SO..? Woah..? o_O

user54412

(@tpg2114 we don't actually see what specific sub-topic of off-topic was chosen in a flag)

tpg2114

Jul 9, 2013 18:20

So then what's the purpose of having sub-topics at all?

ManishEarth

@tpg2114 That's only for flags

Oh i see

user54412

@tpg2114 that's a good question

user54412

only the SO overlords can answer that

tpg2114

It seems to influence the message put under the question about why it was closed

So when voting to close, do you choose a reason why it should be closed?

And that's how it gets decided what the message is?

ManishEarth

@tpg2114 yes

When VTCing, the reason chosen is shown to other vtcers

and finally, the reasons come in the banner

tpg2114

Jul 9, 2013 18:23

So the whole workflow doesn't really matter for flaggers?

ManishEarth

if multiple off topic reasons are chosen, you get a bulleted list

@tpg2114 Apparently yes

David Zaslavsky

@ChrisWhite I'm not even convinced we really need more than 2 yet :-P

tpg2114

Basically we flag to put it in the queue, so what our list is doesn't matter

ManishEarth

@tpg2114 IMO you guys need "off topic" and "belongs on another site", OR the full features

user54412

@DavidZaslavsky well my consideration (3) was we can wait and accrue data on what is being closed: engineering, off-topic in some other way, etc.

tpg2114

Jul 9, 2013 18:24

That's what it looks like to me too

ManishEarth

'm asking a meta pst on this now

David Zaslavsky

@ChrisWhite yeah, that works

ManishEarth

@ChrisWhite I probably can tweak my data.se query for that

Crazy Buddy

Maybe, we don't have (or very diffuse) questions on other topics (which we don't remember)

tpg2114

Cause the only need for reasons is to make it easy to put boilerplate messages when it closes right? That's just to make life easy since VtC'ers can always put in a custom message to cover other reasons

Crazy Buddy

Jul 9, 2013 18:26

Isn't 3 enough..?

@tpg2114 Yeah...

Crazy Buddy

Maybe I should spam myself now..! (before everyone disappears :P

"Everyone wish me for my b'day" before "today" ends (only a few mins left) --> I turned 18 finally (It's quite special ya know) :D

user54412

@CrazyBuddy You're, like, an adult?!? o.O

Crazy Buddy

@ChrisWhite No... I lied till now ;-)

tpg2114

So I think we don't need a 3rd reason until we see some stats on what's the next most common reason

Crazy Buddy

@tpg2114 Isn't 3rd reason engineering..? hello..?

I thought we're still thinking about it ;-)

tpg2114

Jul 9, 2013 18:30

I don't know if that's the most common one or not though

Crazy Buddy

Same to me..!

4 mins ago, by Crazy Buddy

Maybe, we don't have (or very diffuse) questions on other topics (which we don't remember)

user54412

placeholder suggestion:

user54412

> The subject matter here is not a part of physics as defined in our faq.

user54412

feel free to tear it apart

tpg2114

I'd be happy with something like that

Crazy Buddy

Jul 9, 2013 18:32

@ChrisWhite Yeah..! Let's override everything to this one..! :D

user54412

It may overlap a little with other reasons, but I'm okay with them not being mutually exclusive - users should pick out the most specific reason that applies

Crazy Buddy

@ChrisWhite And, you didn't notice that our FAQ has already been changed to help center..! :D

user54412

but I suspect @DavidZaslavsky thinks we should leave the slot blank for now?

tpg2114

physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic

It would go straight to that page instead

Crazy Buddy

Yeah...

ManishEarth

Jul 9, 2013 18:34

Yep

David Zaslavsky

@ChrisWhite oh, no, I'm all for putting something in that slot, even temporarily

user54412

much better link

Crazy Buddy

3

A: Chat session to discuss and possibly finalize close reasons

Reason #2: Non-mainstream physics Bookmarked chat conversation We deal with mainstream physics here. Questions about the general correctness of unpublished personal theories are off topic, although specific questions evaluating new theories in the context of established science are usually a...

ManishEarth

We could just un-defaultify the default close reason

This could be confusing though

Crazy Buddy

> The Physics Meta bit will link to a specific faq post once we have that written.

user54412

Jul 9, 2013 18:35

I'm already confused

David Zaslavsky

There's already a default there, so it probably would be confusing to add our own other default

tpg2114

Default for whom?

For people who are just flaggers, there isn't a default option

David Zaslavsky

For me :-P

i.e. mods

I'd rather see that particular issue fixed by giving flaggers a default close option, or just taking out suboptions for flaggers entirely, or something.

tpg2114

Yes, I'm all for taking out sub options for flaggers assuming there's a help thing somewhere on reasons to flag

David Zaslavsky

The point is, it's an issue to be fixed in the design of the SE system, not by sticking in a hackish close reason

Anyway I have to go

ManishEarth

Jul 9, 2013 18:38

@DavidZaslavsky yeah

David Zaslavsky

See you all later

tpg2114

See ya

ManishEarth

Query done

Crazy Buddy

C'ya David ;-)

ManishEarth

tpg2114

Jul 9, 2013 18:41

So by that, Engineering is a bigger issue that non-mainstream

Slightly

ManishEarth

Note: This isn't accurate

The Engineering and mainstream ones are determined from the text in the comments

OK, any ideas for an "engineering" close reason?

I'll draft up a meta post for "What's the point of giving flaggers subreasons" thing

user54412

what did @Colin say?

user54412

> Engineering questions are off-topic unless they relate directly to physics. These quesions might be on topic on other SE sites. Possible suggestions: DIY, EE, robotics, reverse engineering, patents.

ManishEarth

scrolls up

Crazy Buddy

@ManishEarth Not now... I'm half-a-way to sleep..! o_O

ManishEarth

Jul 9, 2013 18:43

oh that

Not sure about the "possible suggestions" bit

user54412

It would need tweaking

ManishEarth

IMO "directly related to physics" is a bit iffy too. But I can't think of anything better

tpg2114

Well what's the issue we're trying to prevent? It's more questions like "How do I build/design X" right?

ManishEarth

Yeah

Or anything that asks about an engineering problem

user54412

::enters tag-wiki mode::

user54412

Jul 9, 2013 18:46

> This question appears to be about engineering, which is the application of scientific knowledge to constructing something new. As such, it is off topic for this site, which deals with the science of studying how the natural world works.

ManishEarth

Like "Why does <complicated system> [not] display <phenomenon>?"

Crazy Buddy

Okay.. C'ya everyone... gtg to "other works" :D

tpg2114

But how would you define that? "Why are airplanes made of aluminum" is a good question though right?

user54412

@tpg2114 true

ManishEarth

@tpg2114 yes

@ChrisWhite yeah, nice

tpg2114

Jul 9, 2013 18:48

Plus, design-of-experiment questions should probably be on topic too... "How do I build a supercollider" as an extreme example (which would be too broad obviously)

ManishEarth

yeah, that's broad

tpg2114

Basically I think questions about why engineering decisions are made would be okay, but questions about how to make engineering decisions would not be

But I don't know how to put that into a clear, concise close reason

ManishEarth

Here's a list of recently closed engineering questions

user54412

> This question appears to be about engineering, which is the application of scientific knowledge to construct a solution to solve a specific problem. As such, it is off topic for this site, which deals with the science, whether theoretical or experimental, of studying how the natural world works.

Colin McFaul

@ChrisWhite I had just copied that from the current Math wording, and changed Math -> engineering.

The possible suggestions sentence would need re-writing.

ManishEarth

Jul 9, 2013 18:50

and.... @tpg2114 is correct, all the engineering closes are for "how to make my engineering decision"

user54412

I struggle with this often - explaining to people the science and engineering may work closely together but have fundamentally different goals

Colin McFaul

I was thinking to point people to other SE sites where something would be on topic

ManishEarth

@ChrisWhite However, asking why an airplane flies is on topic. Airplanes aren't natural

@ColinMcFaul In those cases we try to migrate

tpg2114

But they fly because of the properties of the natural world

ManishEarth

Unless it's a bad question

tpg2114

Jul 9, 2013 18:51

I think the key is the why instead of how

ManishEarth

@tpg2114 I know. But the usage of "natural' could be misleading

user54412

@ColinMcFaul that would be nice, but the engineering sites are so diverse - we can't have a pre-written response mentioning electronics be used to close a chemical engineering question

ManishEarth

Just like the usage of "practical problems" in the FAQ

@ChrisWhite good point

Colin McFaul

@ChrisWhite True, and that's probably the fatal weakness of that approach to the wording.

ManishEarth

Here's an engineering question that asks why:

4

Q: Why does Guillotine have of 45 degreed blade rather than the one parallel to the ground?

What is the point of having 45 degreed blade in Guillotine? After all, the pressure-Force over Area-blade imposes to the neck is the same either way.

classical-mechanics

user54412

Jul 9, 2013 18:53

oddly enough, that ^ probably belongs on cooking.stackexchange.com

ManishEarth

LOL

But true

tpg2114

I'm not sure that's an engineering issue though

ManishEarth

I'd like to see what happens if we migrate it

fwiw SO once migrated to Cooking

@tpg2114 that too

tpg2114

I'm sure there's a nice simulation somewhere of the shear forces involved...

ManishEarth

Guys, I suggest you have a look at a couple of questions here if you've not done so already

tpg2114

Jul 9, 2013 18:56

And yes, I have seen computer simulations of babies being shaken, blast waves hitting people in the face, and a simulated fist punching a head... It turns out there's a lot of complicated physics involved with how the brain moves inside the skull

ManishEarth

@tpg2114 yep.

@Qmechanic Hey there :) We have semi-finalized two close reasons, and are working on getting a good wording for "engineering question"

> This question appears to be about engineering, which is the application of scientific knowledge to construct a solution to solve a specific problem. As such, it is off topic for this site, which deals with the science, whether theoretical or experimental, of studying how the natural world works.

IMO this is better. Less emphasis on the "natural"

user54412

+1

ManishEarth

Any other takers?

@ColinMcFaul ?

user54412

@ManishEarth perhaps we can add a meta post on science-vs-engineering to our to-do list

ManishEarth

@ChrisWhite Sure

user54412

Jul 9, 2013 19:01

I'd be willing to contribute

ManishEarth

@ChrisWhite If you start one, I can wikify it so that we can collaborate. Or Google Docs

user54412

@ManishEarth working on it

ManishEarth

kk

user54412

Jul 9, 2013 19:24

0

Q: Are engineering questions appropriate for this site?

Often we get questions of the form "How to build this particular device?" or "Why was this design implemented in such-and-such product?" Are these questions appropriate for Physics Stackexchange?

discussion scope faq-proposed

user54412

@ManishEarth CW please

ManishEarth

done

bit busy atm, but I'll see if I can add anyhing

user54412

no rush - it needs more text, and it needs links to good (and bad?) examples

Physics Meta

1

Q: Are engineering questions appropriate for this site?

Under Construction. Relevant query Often we get questions of the form "How to build this particular device?" or "Why was this design implemented in such-and-such product?" Are these questions appropriate for Physics Stackexchange?

discussion scope faq-proposed

ManishEarth

Added some engineering SE sites and a link to the "why do airplanes fly" question

Homework Close reason discussion

Non Mainstream Physics close reason discussion

The h Bar

Participants