@Martin-マーチン thanks for your reply on the repo! I'll post a detailed reply tomorrow, but just wanted to let you know that I too am gradually shifting away from the low-effort policy (read ten lines here)
We might really have to have the discussion what the community thinks a close vote actually is and what it is supposed to do. Maybe we all want different things at that level already...
@Martin-マーチン <nod>, I think I've said before -- I think we've gotten to a space where too many in the community follow a thought of "I don't want to answer this question..." with "...and so nobody else should, either. <CLOSEVOTE>."
When the better response is either just <CLOSE TAB> or <DOWNVOTE>.
I think one should see close-votes as a ticking time bomb. It'll give the OP (and the community) time to 'defuse' (improve) it, but if that doesn't happen, they should blow up (be deleted).
@Martin-マーチン okay, I'll admit I don't understand where you're trying to applying this thought to. What problem are you trying to solve apart from what the meta post by MAR had already covered?
Unfortunately, we've had a problem for quite a while now. It basically boils down to close voting questions with reasons that don't fit. Essentially, the Homework off-topic close reason, "unclear what you're asking", and "too broad" reasons are sometimes used where they make no sense whatsoever.
...
@GaurangTandon I'm applying this thought, that everybody who vtc needs to be conscious what that means; and in my opinion it means that the question should be deleted unless improved.
I was solving some questions, and I came across this one.
This is how I went about it, although I got a wrong answer:
(2) shows the nitro group to be sterically hindered, due to which it should go out of plane and this will be an example of the steric inhibition of resonance. Hence, there wi...
even the compounds aren't same, so how's it a dupe? @pentavalentcarbon could you please tell why you would closevote this as dupe? or maybe you just happened to make an error here?
@GaurangTandon @hBy2Py Basically that is the problem, and I think every close voter should be aware that by closing the question is basically out on death row (do you spell that like this?) It might change how questions are being closed...
@Martin-マーチン and @hBy2Py hmmm okay, that makes sense. So, by making the question closure have a lot more seriousness associated with it, we want to fix the current situation of frivolous/mis-applied close votes?
These 3 may be worthwhile for inclusion into a canonical Q/A: 1. https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/q/54858/194 2. https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/q/54366/194 3. https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/q/41530/194
@hBy2Py hmm...I think this discussion is now out-of-frame with Chem.SE and is now sort of clashing with the mechanism SE has put for us. Delete votes are restricted for 10k+ users. I know we lack too many active 10k+ users so I guess this is our way of working around it?
@pentavalentcarbon i was wanting to bring this up but...I think we should decide on a particular time deadline before deleting a bad old question? I've no problems with deleting this particular question, but Dr. J seems to an active user, and if they detect one of their answers disappeared suddenly, I'm not sure if they would feel happy
@pentavalentcarbon ah, yeah, he indeed is mad. probably a bad example for my point, but I think you got it...
@pentavalentcarbon by which search query do you dig them out currently, btw?
@hBy2Py yeah, I think this is something that requires a bit more thought. Close voted questions stay around on all other SE sites forever, unless Roomba-ed. I doubt any of them put all those closed questions on a death row as we are planning to.
This is a good opportunity to say though that those downvotes are because of me, because I don't like that question at all, that's not what the site should be in my opinion, and I am free to downvote as I wish, just like they can for me as well. If you think that makes the site suck...I don't know what to say.
@pentavalentcarbon I most certainly agree, and we can only cure these calculative physical-chem questions - with zero concept and only maths - through canonical, conceptual Q&As
@GaurangTandon I don't have one, because I don't regularly come here...I skim the front page, and look at the "related questions" on the right-hand side.
@pentavalentcarbon Agreed. I really feel we should first let a mod have a look at that page and wave their delete-wand first, on the blatantly obvious bad cases. We can have a look at the remaining later. (In general, I also feel we need to have our Spring Cleaning work a bit more organized, but as long as the room doesn't get too active, it's not a big deal)
@pentavalentcarbon that makes me start to hate the effort closure even more... the question seems interesting
On one hand I'm really glad that there's quite a lot of recent activity here. On the other hand I sometimes feel like I can't keep up... the difference in the amount of free time (and energy) I have now, vs the amount of free time (and energy) I had one year ago, is stark.
I'll say that I read the repo and both penta's and Martin's comments.
And, perhaps somewhat predictably (I can be very fickle), I don't know if I still agree with my stance of ~a year ago... In an ideal world, I would agree with "conceptual" as a closure metric. The problem is that (I think) in practice it will probably be equally subjective and equally prone to abuse as "effort".
Anyway, regarding the question I put up for deletion yesterday, I think it can be reworked into a slightly more sensible question, so I'll do it. Thanks for everybody's input.
I was solving some questions, and I came across this one.
This is how I went about it, although I got a wrong answer:
(2) shows the nitro group to be sterically hindered, due to which it should go out of plane and this will be an example of the steric inhibition of resonance. Hence, there wi...
Spring Cleaning
Spring Cleaning