« first day (31 days earlier)      last day (2155 days later) » 

12:43 AM
@Air Did you mostly not like this question because at the end the poster asked for references? Other than that, I feel like the two numbered items could be answered.
Q: Expanding our public beta audience

AirIt's now been one month since Engineering.SE entered private beta. In that month, you've helped to collect nearly 250 questions and 400 answers on engineering topics ranging from steering devices and bridge loading to sustainable housing and metallurgical history. Well done! But as fundamental ...

@hazzey @Air I agree. I think since it was mostly about two specific aspects it wasn't so much an NDQ. I do think it's a little broad, but we could talk about lighting and EMF in broad terms. The 'what else?' at the end is problematic, but easily edited.
I will tackle an edit to tighten it up if everyone thinks that it is worthy.
@hazzey Thanks! I'll vote for re-open once you edit.
1:01 AM
Ok, I did some minor editing (mostly just deleting). I feel that the original question is still there, but now it is able to be answered.
1:13 AM
@hazzey I edited your edit, it didn't make sense to have the colon and bulleted list when there was only one list item
Good point.
1:29 AM
@hazzey we talked about that one privately and agreed it had multiple issues that needed to be addressed. The edits since then are pretty good. I would try to retain the specific concern about lightning safety from the original. It still isn't fantastic but I would not "veto" a community reopen at this point.
Can't speak for the whole team on that count though.
1:46 AM
@GlenH7 Wow over 1K views great question. Great promo for the site. Congrats
@MahendraGunawardena ty. :-)
@hazzey I'm not sure about that question still
We don't have any information regarding the electrical wiring that's currently in place, and that's a huge variable that hasn't been addressed
If we forced some specifics on the question, it could be answerable. That may or may not meet the OP's intent, but that's where we have to pick and choose between creating quality site content versus answering a particular person's exact question.
My concerns mirror Glen's. I don't deny that the question could be made answerable, but I don't know that we can put the specifics to it that will help the OP. That's something they probably need to provide.
We would answer a question, but not the question.
1:52 AM
There's a world of difference between "I need to build a bridge over a 240V line" versus "I need to build a bridge over a 500kV line"
The latter is suicide, the first is possible.
2:10 AM
The voltage just gives the clear spacing that is required to keep it from arcing. The more interesting question is whether there could be induced currents in the bridge structure. Of course now we are really going down the path of changing the question into what I want it to be.
The fact that there are multiple interesting questions inside this question is a red flag.
With zero details about the design of the bridge, the nature of the catenary line, any of the geometry involved...
I really would like to read the answer you want to give. I'm just not sure that professionals visiting the site will find it useful to read a collection of different users' interpretations of the problem statement.
That's why I'm on the fence. Maybe we can ask for some of these specifics that are lacking, even a ballpark for the voltage, separation distance, etc.
It'll be easier for the OP to give us those details if we identify what we need.
2:38 AM
At this point, should we roll back the edits that have been made? I feel bad about completely chopping it up and then just leaving it.
2:49 AM
@hazzey The author can always rollback if he wants to.
He's got an association bonus so hopefully he knows that.
In a situation like this, where sequential edits are causing the question to drift away from the author's apparent original intent, it's fine to add an edit that reverts part of a previous edit, or just brings back some element that had been lost. Here's an example that comes to mind where I did essentially that (in revision 4 - with a very detailed summary, since it was a suggested edit)
(You don't necessarily want to read through that whole revision history... it was a big effort, my attempt for Red Baron during winter bash)
3:34 AM
@HDE226868 @hazzey Congrats on 1,000 reputation, by the way!
@Air Thanks. It is going to be hard to keep up the momentum though.
11 hours later…
2:34 PM
@hazzey You beat me to 1024, I see. :-)
@GlenH7 Sure. I'll work on it.
@Air Thanks. More reviewers for the suggested edit queue! And editors, too.
2:46 PM
@GlenH7 This may be tough for a few reasons:
1) The existing laws are not specified. At the moment, commercial operations on celestial bodies are kind of in a grey area.
2) Currently, we're far from getting humans to Mars even in basic conditions.
3) What benefits does Mars have? The original said that environmental regulations would be looser there. That is not true. Given how much we've messed up Earth, people will want us to take care of other planets. I think there was a Calvin and Hobbes strip that discussed that.
4) How does the company plan to construct the plant? Temporary housing structures must be built, unless the plan is to send robots there to build those and then send in humans. The technological difficulties. . .
I don't know how much I can edit it to make it better.
3:33 PM
@Air What do you mean? Was the edit incorrect?
3:53 PM
I think he's referring to the fact that it was rejected twice previously
And then you approved it
@TrevorArchibald Really? I hadn't seen it in the queue before. This was my first or second review after hitting 1k.
What's the issue with it? Sorry if I'm being thick, but it seemed okay.
The edit itself isn't bad, but it doesn't improve the question
I saw that suggested edit too, and I was waffling back on forth, so I really just skipped it
Yes, the edits all make sense, but they don't make it a better question, just a still bad question with better formatting
@TrevorArchibald I dislike the question. If I had seen it, I would have vtc in 10 seconds. The link gives it a bit of context. I suppose that it being closed makes the edit poorer. Editing a closed question should, I guess, make it closer to being re-openable.
But that question will not be re-opened.
4:33 PM
@HDE It broke markdown, introduced a grammatical error, didn't fix other errors, and was being made to a question that has very little chance of being reopened
I didn't realize it had been rejected before
Actually... it hasn't? @Trevor what are you referring to?
"hazzey reviewed this 16 hours ago: Reject
This edit does not make the post even a little bit easier to read, easier to find, more accurate or more accessible. Changes are either completely superfluous or actively harm readability."
Oh, I thought you meant the user had suggested it twice before.
Oh, do you have to have multiple votes to accept an edit?
You need 2 accepts, or 3 on SO
Unless someone uses Improve or Reject & Edit
Or there's an edit conflict... or OP approves it...
4:38 PM
Anyway I'm just teasing about public shaming. It's not garbage but it did break Markdown and that's really important to catch in suggestions.
Especially in the case where we're editing a closed question, everything should be fixed at once so it doesn't get bumped more than necessary
But I don't think you see that it's closed in the queue, do you
5:14 PM
@TrevorArchibald Or if a mod approves it.
@Air What do you mean by "it did break Markdown"?
Ah, now I see the markdown error. It didn't show up in the queue.
Is there a way for us "normal" people to find out what happened to questions? The "Why are robots made to look like humans?" is gone. I can't see what happened. I voted to close, but I can't see what actually happened to it. I am assuming that it just got deleted?
@hazzey I can't see it either. It looks like it was deleted. It couldn't have been migrated (?) because it would show up in my review close votes history as such. But it shows up sans link, as it appears deleted posts do. Except in the list of a user's flags, which has (some) different markings.
@hazzey @HDE226868 I deleted it, someone pointed out that it had been cross posted from Robotics.SE
(Following the same procedure as what Robert did with the rocket sealing question)
I didn't even know there was a Robotics.SE. Glad it's there.
They downvoted it like crazy though
5:28 PM
It does look like it's going to be closed.
It still wasn't a good question even if it was placed correctly. The answer Paul made of "Because we can" is the only answer to such a broad question
Quick question: I was going to ask about whether there's the possibility of a catastrophic failure at the RHIC (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Heavy_Ion_Collider) at Brookhaven, like there was at the LHC in 2008. The two are at the top of their class, so they're okay to compare. Would the question fit here?
That sounds like a lot of speculation
What kind of catastrophic failure seems more answerable, but even then, you'd need someone with fairly detailed knowledge of its design
@TrevorArchibald It comes down to how similar the magnets are and asking whether or not there is a system in place to prevent such an accident. Actually, it can be reduced to "Is the RHIC as susceptible to magnetic quenches as the LHC is?"
You'd only need a knowledge of superconducting magnets to answer that.
Ok, yeah, if you're going to ask about the same type of failure that the LHC went through
5:40 PM
@TrevorArchibald Oh, yes, I meant the exact same kind.
Yeah, I'd say that's on-topic then
A lot can go wrong with particle accelerators. A question asking about that would be waaaaay too broad. I'll think about this a bit more and finalize the phrasing, then post it soon.
@HDE226868 Probably one of those things that's only really visible in one of the three revision tabs
I like the RHIC question idea
1 hour later…
7:06 PM
What happens with old questions that aren't particularly good, have outstanding requests for more information, and haven't had any interaction from the original questioner? I am thinking about this.
Does it just get left alone and stays as a bad question forever? Does it eventually get noticed and flagged/removed/closed after so long?
@hazzey It might get closed eventually, but most likely it'll keep popping up once in a while as the Community user bumps it every so often.
7:28 PM
The RHIC question is up:
Q: Could magnets at the RHIC be damaged like the ones at the LHC were in 2008?

HDE 226868In 2008, an electrical fault led to a freaky magnetic quench at the Large Hadron Collider, which in turn released a lot of helium, damaging dozens of superconducting magnets in the process and setting the LHC back a full year. Magnetic quenches happen often in particle accelerators, and helium is...

3 hours later…
10:37 PM
@hazzey Unfortunately, yes, those often just hang out forever as bad questions. Community Mod will roll through and close out no-vote, no-scored answers after a year of inactivity even if the question isn't closed. If something offends your sensibilities then flag for mod attention and explain why there's no hope for it.
@air, @TrevorArchibald, @HDE226868, So this is the current guidance on reviewing suggested edits. The TL;DR version is if the edit introduces any improvement then to go ahead and approve.
In that particular case, it looks like Peter made a mistake and missed removing the trailing formatting. Normally, he's much better about catching all of those things.
I think the better option would have been to select "Improve Edit" and remove the trailing formatting. Especially since he explained what LFS was, expanded out `yr` into year, and got rid of the thanks at the end.
A: What are the guidelines for reviewing?

bfavarettoGuidelines for reviewing Suggested Edits Basic workflow Review the differences between the original post and the suggested edit, and the edit summary above the differences. Check if there is any reason to reject the edit. If you find any, Reject or Reject and Edit. Verify if the suggested edi...

I am so annoyed at chat markdown at the moment... <sigh/> Sorry for the 800 chat pings.
@hazzey - Another option is to edit the plough question into something more constructive. Doesn't really matter about OP's intent at that point as they've effectively abandoned the post.
@GlenH7 I agree. I wish that markdown had shown the error in the review; I don't recalling it showing that there was a formatting error.
11:11 PM
It was sneaky, no doubt
And tbh, I can't recall the last edit I've rejected from Peter. His stuff is almost always spot-on. He's one of those users that a community should happily welcome. Doesn't necessarily create a lot of content, but does a great job at editing things.

« first day (31 days earlier)      last day (2155 days later) »